Journal des débats 1986-déc-09 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Jackson: During the holiday season, I invite all Ontarians to enjoy with pride the Tournament of Roses parade on January 1. For the first time in pageant history, the lead band will not be the United States Marines. This year 245 talented young people from Burlington, Ontario, the Burlington Teen Tour Band, will lead America's most famous parade.

This is the third trip the band has made to the Rose Bowl parade and it is a tribute to the abilities of these young people and the reputation they have earned as the band enters its 40th year.

Since the band was formed in 1947 by the city's chamber of commerce, the Teen Tour Band has toured extensively throughout the world, including the United States, England, France, Holland and West Germany. Band members have won acclaim for their ability and for being goodwill ambassadors wherever they have gone. This is Canada's largest marching band. It is now a part of the music program of the city's recreation department, the only one of its kind in the country.

Virtually all the band's budget, sometimes $500,000 a year, is raised through performance fees; the Band Boosters, a group of interested and involved Burlington residents; and the band members themselves.

These young people, all between the ages of 13 and 21, are a tribute to the excellence of Ontario's youth as well as to the musical direction of Don Allan, marching director Robert Garnier and drum line instructor Lorne Ferrazzutti.

It is with great pride that I invite all members of this assembly to show our admiration and respect for, and to offer our best wishes to, the Burlington Teen Tour Band.

PEEL CHILDREN'S CENTRE

Mr. R. F. Johnston: About six months ago, families that had their children in Charlestown, a home for mentally retarded kids with behavioural problems in the Peel region, found that the centre had been turned over to another organization. They had great hopes that the same kind of care their children had been receiving would continue.

Recently, there has been very troubling information about the status of the programs there and the standards being undertaken in the home. As recently as just a few weeks ago, a 16-year-old was taken from there to Penetanguishene in a straitjacket and the parents only found out about it a day and a bit later. There have been increasing acts of violence in the home.

Many parents who have been here today picketing outside in the rain have noted there has been a regression in their children's behaviour and they have been unable to meet with the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney).

It is my request -- and I have written this to the minister already, but I believe there is new evidence -- that the minister, first, should meet with these parents immediately and discuss what is going on with their kids. Second, we need an independent inquiry into what is going on in that home and a report within a month, so that we can be sure the Peel Children's Centre is doing the work we would want done for those children.

The kinds of examples we have been given today by those parents who came to visit me in my office are very, very frightening, and I ask the minister to take the complaints of the parents much more seriously.

OWEN SOUND ANNIVERSARY

Mr. Sargent: Every member of the House is very proud of his home town. My home town is Owen Sound, "the scenic city of Canada," the most beautiful city in Canada. In 1987, we are celebrating our 100th anniversary, Homecoming '87. Part of the celebration is that we are giving out $3 bills as legal tender. I have sent one to the Premier (Mr. Peterson), one to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) and one to the leader of the third party.

Mr. Pollock: What about the rest of us?

Mr. Sargent: Okay. They will be available at $3 a shot. They are legal tender, acceptable by any bank in Owen Sound. I hope I will not be charged by the opposition with passing counterfeit money.

INSURANCE INDUSTRY

Mr. Gordon: I have a statement I would like to address to the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. Kwinter). It would appear that what the Slater task force on insurance is recommending is nothing more than a revised edition of an existing provincial no-fault insurance policy called the Workers' Compensation Board. Workers' Compensation Board policy does not establish liability or indict any one person or party. Similarly, Mr. Slater's proposed insurance scheme is also based on the no-fault system, absolving anyone of liability.

Again, Mr. Slater is suggesting that injured parties be awarded a pension, a proposal identical to the current practice of the compensation board. He does not make any provision for lump sum payments to accident victims, which again reflects the Workers' Compensation Board policy.

Mr. Slater proposes eliminating court awards for pain and suffering, which once again reflects the policies already in existence at the Workers' Compensation Board. The set rate of compensation urged by the task force is a replica of that used by the WCB in determining awards.

Is the Minister of Financial Institutions trying to tell us he intends to subject the people of this province to what amounts to a second Workers' Compensation Board?

PAWNSHOP PRACTICES

Mr. Mackenzie: I recently had a constituent come to me who has a problem with the poor people's bank, pawnshops in our community. The complaint that is raised is that after a house robbery, the recovery of some of the goods in the pawnshop required this particular lady not only to pay for the items but also to pay a handling charge on top of the cost that had been paid for the items.

She raises, I think quite rightly, the question that if you purchase something in all honesty that turns out to be a hot item, that item is seized and you can even be charged. However, if your own jewellery, some of it with sentimental value, is stolen and is subsequently found, you are going to have to pay to get it back and also pay a handling charge on it.

Her investigations at the time also indicated that very little hard identification is required in most of the pawnshops, certainly in our community. In this case, the same person had pawned material three times over a short period without any ID, as the police investigation found out. She raises the question of more proper ID, and raises the question that certainly there should not be any handling charge on top of the actual cost for household items. It also appears there is a lot to be asked for in the way of the recordkeeping on the goods that actually are pawned.

I hope Ontario will decide to take a look at the regulations controlling pawnshops in our province.

ONTARIO HIGHWAY TRANSPORT BOARD

Mr. Villeneuve: It has been brought to my attention that the Ontario Highway Transport Board has been holding hearings outside Ontario, even for applications that involve Ontario residents who intend to operate solely within the province.

Under such circumstances, I see no reason that the Ontario Highway Transport Board should be holding hearings in Hull, Quebec. There are facilities throughout eastern Ontario that could accommodate the Ontario Highway Transport Board. I cannot for a moment believe that the city of Ottawa would lack the necessary available space, particularly with completion of the new courthouse facilities.

Both the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton), and the acting Minister of Government Services (Mr. Conway) should ensure that Ontario agencies hold their meetings in Ontario. Their failure to do so indicates carelessness at the least and outright negligence of responsibility in the worst case by the ministers involved.

The government should guarantee hearings inside Ontario by regulatory tribunals that meet to hear Ontario residents concerning matters that apply only to Ontario. This should have been a policy as a matter of course. It is a shame that attention must be drawn to such a basic principle of fairness, particularly when we have new courthouse facilities in Ontario in the city of Ottawa that are not being completed because it is said they will not be required.

PROTECTION FOR HOME BUYERS

Mr. Philip: I am absolutely shocked at the statement by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) that he can do very little for the 40 home buyers who have been ripped off in a sweetheart contract by a builder in the Bolton area north of the riding I represent.

Why is the minister not prepared to meet with that builder and tell him this behaviour is unacceptable in Ontario? I ask him as the minister responsible for consumer affairs how he can allow a builder to design a sweetheart contract and to refuse any alterations by the would-be purchasers.

Why has he not designed a form contract that could be recommended for implementation to all builders and consumers to protect consumers? Why will he not meet with that builder and tell him to cease that kind of action and to sell the homes at the price that was originally agreed? Why will he not introduce legislation to protect my constituents and so many other people such as those 40 home buyers, who entered into a contract in good faith and have been ripped off by the builder? Why does the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations not act like a minister of consumer relations and not always like a minister of commercial relations on the part of the builders?

DEATH OF UNION LEADER

Mr. Rae: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I wonder whether the House will grant me the indulgence of saying a few words on the death of a good friend of many of us in the New Democratic Party, who was also an outstanding public servant in Ontario, Bud Clark, Canadian director of the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers' Union, who died very suddenly and tragically in his home on Saturday. With the unanimous consent of the House, I would like permission to say a few words.

Agreed to.

Mr. Rae: Bud Clark was someone for whom all of us in the New Democratic Party had enormous affection. He died suddenly and tragically on Saturday night while attending an annual family party at his home in St. Catharines.

I want to say a few words about Bud because he made such an enormous contribution to the working people of this province. He came out of a plant in Brantford. He led a company association into the Textile Workers Union of America. He went on to become a business agent in Hamilton and then joined the staff of the international. He rose to become Canadian director of the textile workers and then led them into amalgamation with the clothing workers. He went on to become a vice-president of the Ontario Federation of Labour. He was vice-president of the international and sole Canadian director of his trade union.

He contributed an enormous amount to the political development of this province. He led and was involved in a great many famous battles for working people, such as the right to picket peacefully, the right to assemble peacefully, the defence of working people and the issues of health and safety that led him to be named a member of the Workers' Compensation Board after we changed the law recently. All of these things are an indication of the extraordinary possibilities that membership and leadership in the trade union movement give to those who seek service.

I have outlined very briefly some of the facts about Bud's life, but to talk about those gives a very inadequate sense of his personality. He was a big man in every sense of the word. He had a booming voice and a booming presence. He had a tremendous laugh, which all of us will remember for the rest of our days. He was an enormously joyous companion in political battles and in struggles on behalf of working people. He was a great friend. He was a good person to know. He was, as far as I am concerned, a terrific social democrat and a wonderful human being.

I want to take this opportunity, personally and on behalf of our party, to say to his wife June and his three kids how very sorry we are that Bud Clark is not with us any more. We feel deeply saddened at having lost him so early in life, when he still had so much to contribute. I know I will take with me the wishes of all the members of the Legislature when, together with many members of our caucus, I attend his funeral in St. Catharines tomorrow.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: We in the government likewise wish to extend to Bud Clark's family our deeply felt sympathy. As an individual residing in St. Catharines -- I have had the opportunity to represent the area for about nine years now -- I knew Bud for a number of those years and had to deal with him under some very difficult circumstances.

The leader of the third party has outlined his career. I never knew his name was Charles Clark until I looked at his obituary today, which is an indication that he was known to everybody as Bud Clark. He was a friend to everybody. He was a reasonable man for people to deal with. He had a very strong commitment to the labour union movement, particularly to those he represented, but he was also a reasonable and fair-minded individual who was looking at all times for an agreement for those he represented. He wanted a good agreement, but he was prepared to be honest at the bargaining table, to do the very best for his workers and to sell a contract to his workers, those he represented, when he felt that contract would be useful and helpful to them.

In our community, he was well respected as well. His fame, if I can use that word, certainly goes beyond the borders of St. Catharines, so I do not say this in a parochial sense. We probably saw his truly human side come out when there were plant closings. We have had some tough times in our textile industry in Ontario during the past several years. We have had a number of plant closings. Bud Clark was always there to stand shoulder to shoulder with those who were losing their jobs, to attempt to get a reversal of a decision on the part of management and, if that were not possible, to get the best possible severance deal and placement of those workers.

The labour union movement, the workers of this province, the people of St. Catharines and, in a sense, speaking for our government, the people of Ontario, will miss Bud Clark and the contribution he was continuing to make right up to his untimely and sudden death. We extend to his family and his friends the heartfelt sympathy of all of us in this House.

Mr. Gillies: The official opposition would certainly like to associate itself with the remarks made by the leader of the New Democratic Party and the Minister of the Environment. I cannot remember when I first met Bud Clark, but suffice it to say it would have been many years ago, probably during an election campaign, and you can bet your life we were not working on the same campaign.

As has been said earlier, Bud Clark was very dedicated to his workers and to the union with which he was associated for so many years. He was also dedicated to the community. In my numerous meetings with him over the years, regardless of whether he agreed with one or not, he was a very agreeable person. He made a tremendous contribution and was, as the leader of the third party said, a big man in every way, certainly in terms of his very warm personality.

His contributions were numerous, including his long standing as a vice-president of the Ontario Federation of Labour and his long standing within his own trade union, the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, and its predecessor unions. That activity started in Brantford. He leaves relatives in my community; in fact, I understand he was attending a family gathering in Brantford when he took ill on the weekend. He also leaves many friends in my community. We will miss him.

He was re-elected to his office in the OFL just two weeks ago. He was continuing to serve our province as a member of the Workers' Compensation Board. I guess it was typical of Bud Clark that he was a fighter right to the end. I will miss him personally. We all miss him and can only give our very sincere sympathies to June Clark and their three children and recognize today as legislators the life and career of a very fine man indeed.

Mr. Speaker: Following your words of sympathy, I will make certain a copy of this Hansard goes to the Clark family.

13:51

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

PENSION BENEFITS LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I wish to make a statement in connection with my responsibilities as Minister of Financial Institutions. I am pleased to inform the House that today I will introduce for first reading the Pension Benefits Act. The purpose of my statement is to outline for the members key decisions by this government related to pension policy.

First and foremost are the many important and welcome reforms for pension plans.

Second is the announcement of our commitment to inflation protection in pensions, and to that end, the establishment of a three-person working group to recommend the best mechanism and formula for inflation protection, keeping in mind the cost impact on plan sponsors.

Third is the announcement of an immediate moratorium on withdrawals of surplus funds in ongoing plans until the report of the working group is delivered and mandatory inflation protection is implemented.

Ontario has developed a package of reforms for pensions based on the federal-provincial majority consensus. This legislation will be of major significance to the retirement future of citizens of this province. The key elements of consensus, all of which are reflected in our proposed legislation, include the following:

Full-time employees will be eligible to join their pension plan after two years of service, regardless of their age.

Part-time employees will be eligible to join after two years of service if they have earned at least 35 per cent of the Canada pension plan's "year's maximum pensionable earnings" for two consecutive years.

Benefits accruing after the effective date of the legislation will be vested and locked in after two years' membership in a pension plan, irrespective of age. This replaces the current "45 and 10" rule.

Employers will be required to fund, at termination, retirement or death, at least one half of a member's benefit accrued after the effective date of the legislation.

Provision has also been made for prescribed rates of interest on employee contributions on termination. This will ensure that plan members will benefit from investment earnings.

To permit early retirement, greater flexibility is afforded those employees within 10 years of normal retirement date.

Portability of pensions will allow those workers who change jobs to carry their pensions with them.

Post-retirement and pre-retirement survivor benefits have been assured. This will be of particular significance to women.

Pension plans will preclude discrimination on the basis of sex with respect to benefits or contributions.

Plan members will have the right to reasonable and regular access to information respecting their benefits and obligations under their plan.

This bill is the result of widespread consultation, not only with governments across Canada but also with plan members, sponsors and industry. We have considered the thoughtful responses received and have made changes to improve the pension legislation that will govern Ontario's 10,500 pension plans.

I assure members that this government has also given very serious consideration to the issues of surplus withdrawal and inflation protection.

I would now like to address the issue of mandatory inflation protection. As members are aware, the absence of support for inflation protection in the package of reforms agreed to by the federal and provincial governments is something with which this government has never been comfortable. I wish to take this opportunity to reaffirm our strong commitment to introduce mandatory inflation protection in the context of our pension legislation.

Ontario is the first province in Canada to commit to taking action on inflation protection for pensions. Therefore, we have a special duty to ensure that the direction given for implementation is well reasoned and effective. We want to know and weigh all the possible approaches and the costs and impacts on plan members and sponsors.

To that end, as I mentioned earlier, we have already taken steps to establish an external working group to determine the most appropriate formula and phase-in procedures for inflation protection. The members of this important group are, as chairman, Martin Friedland, professor of law at the University of Toronto and a fellow of the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, along with E. Sydney Jackson, chairman and chief executive officer of Manufacturers Life Insurance Co., and Cliff Pilkey, immediate past president of the Ontario Federation of Labour.

They will consider the following factors: the needs of employees to have retirement income protected from the effect of inflation; the needs of employers to have finite and affordable pension costs; the importance of maintaining and expanding the private pension system and, in particular, defined benefit plans; the impact of any formula on active employees, existing pensioners and deferred pensioners; the formulas and recommendations contained in previous pension studies relating to inflation protection from Canadian jurisdictions; initiatives studied by other jurisdictions and any formulas currently used in pension plans; the relationship between inflation protection and other pension reform items or issues in the Pension Benefits Act, 1986, such as the 50 per cent employer cost, treatment of surplus, portability and vesting; the appropriate phase-in and implementation period for inflation protection, and the appropriate time period to be provided to plan sponsors to fully fund inflation protection.

As I announced at the beginning of this statement, a moratorium will be placed on the withdrawal of surplus funds from ongoing pension plans effective today. It will remain until the working group completes its report and our mandatory inflation protection program is in place.

The schedule of this House may preclude passage of the legislation by January 1, 1987, the target date for pension reform. It is still our intention to make as many provisions as are feasible effective on that date; however, certain provisions of the legislation which require greater lead time may be phased in. The pension commission will advise as to those reforms which should be phased in between January 1, 1987, and January 1, 1988. The Pension Benefits Act, 1986, will be amended to provide for varied effective dates.

Reform of the rules governing pensions will affect more than 1.8 million Ontarians. As the provincial demographic profile changes, retirees will become an increasing proportion of the population. The provision of security for those retirement years is of major social and economic importance.

I urge the members to support the many important reforms represented in the proposed Pension Benefits Act, 1986.

I would also like to take this opportunity to draw members' attention to a regulation change under the current Pension Benefits Act which will ensure that a private pension plan bridging benefit or special allowance cannot be reduced because of recently announced changes to the Canada pension plan. The regulation is now in effect.

This new regulation reflects the government's belief that it would be unfair to have changes to Canada pension plan rules result in the reduction of bridging benefits, as this would yield a windfall gain to employers and a loss to employees.

Mr. Runciman: We welcome the introduction of the new Pension Benefits Act by the Minister of Financial Institutions, although after looking at it, we have to wonder why it took him 18 months to get it to this stage.

Our leader, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), a former Treasurer of this province, is one of the leading figures in this country in pursuing meaningful pension reform. Much of his hard work and dedication is reflected in the current government's initiative.

The thrust of the minister's pension reforms is to protect pension holders. However, there is another side to these reforms, and I am somewhat reassured by the fact that the minister's working group will be considering this area.

For example, these reforms could penalize employers who have played fair with their employees and provided pension plans. This cost increase will directly affect the profitability of these diligent employers. It will result in lower wage or salary increases for the employees, the very people these reforms are trying to help. Further, firms may cancel their pension plans altogether.

By 2020, 11 individuals under the age of 65 will be working to support every 10 persons over 65. The demands on pensions will far exceed the contributions. This problem could be aggravated by heavy withdrawals from pension funds by corporations seeking to use that money for other purposes.

As well as the initiatives the minister has announced today, the government should seriously consider encouraging Ontarians to explore alternatives to pensions. Current federal tax deductions for retirement savings plans are far too restrictive, and the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) might consider supplementing these deductions with deductions from provincial income tax.

Better yet, the Treasurer's counterparts in Ottawa might be encouraged to introduce tax reforms so that registered retirement savings plan contributions become tax deductible to the same extent as are the contributions to employers' pension plans. If this were combined with fair opting-out provisions, it could lead to more choices for Ontarians as they determine how to save for their futures in this era of an ever-ageing population.

We look forward to working with the government to ensure the fairest, most equitable and most realistic pension legislation for employees and employers in this province.

Mr. McClellan: I had hoped the Grossman line, which I do not think calls for alternatives to pensions, might have been forthcoming from my Tory colleagues; but you never know, I guess.

The statement is a masterpiece of managed news, of Orwellian doublespeak and of news manipulation. The press release says the minister is announcing the government's commitment to inflation protection in pension plans, but the government announced today it has no intention of providing inflation protection in the pension benefits reform legislation and has no intention of dealing with the question of surplus pension funds withdrawal in the legislation.

That is what the announcement was, but the minister has the effrontery to stand up and declare the exact opposite of what he is doing. He is not bringing in legislation to provide inflation protection; he is not bringing in legislation to put an end to surplus pension fund withdrawals. All he is doing -- after 18 months in office, after a royal commission, after a select committee, after a federal royal commission, after a federal green paper, after a federal select committee and after four years of federal-provincial discussions -- is setting up another task force. That is all he is doing.

After 18 months of laborious study, the best the minister can come up with is a task force. It is a cop-out and an insult. It is a reflection on his own incompetence. The workers of this province do not need another task force; they need legislation that provides, as of 1987, inflation protection and an end to the legalized theft of workers' deferred wages from pension funds. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Runciman: Why wasn't it in the accord?

Mr. McClellan: It was in the accord, and they once again found themselves unable to keep their own promise. They once again found themselves unable to honour their own commitments. The record is clear. The Liberal Party has no intention, when push comes to shove, of honouring commitments that were made to the workers of this province. They have betrayed them on this item, as they have on health and safety, on equal pay and on workers' compensation reform. They have been unable to deliver the promises they made to the workers of this province, and the people of this province will see through their phoney commitment to social reform.

Mr. Rae: I see smirks on the faces of the Minister of Financial Institutions and the Attorney General (Mr. Scott). We on this side of the House have become accustomed, if not totally inured, to that kind of smug arrogance when we look at government. When the Minister of Financial Institutions stands up in his place and says he is announcing a major commitment, it is to laugh. If he is laughing at his own joke, that is fine; but the joke will ultimately be on him and the Liberal Party. The people of this province can see through a government that is doing the opposite of what it is alleged to be doing.

When the big boys on Wall Street say, "Boo," the minister rolls over like a spaniel, gives them everything they want and says, "Scratch me again." But when the workers want pensions, he gives them a task force. It is not good enough, it is not satisfactory and it will not wash with the working people of this province. They have been waiting for inflation protection for decades. They thought they had it from the Liberal Party in 1981, in 1984 and in 1985. The minister has been misleading the people of this province with respect to pension reform and it is something for which he will ultimately pay.

Mr. Speaker: I know some members get a little carried away in their comments. The member for York South might want to reconsider the word "misleading," which he used.

Mr. Rae: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I will do whatever you ask me to do according to the rules of the House, but I said the minister was misleading the people of the province. I did not say he was misleading the House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We always seem to have a little trouble with the waviness in the comments. As I said earlier, I wish the member would reconsider the word he used. Will the member withdraw the word "misleading"?

Mr. Rae: I will do whatever you ask, Mr. Speaker. If you ask me to change the word, I will change it to "bamboozle," if that is satisfactory.

Mr. Speaker: I understand the member has withdrawn the word "misleading." Thank you.

14:09

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROTECTION FOR HOME BUYERS

Mr. Runciman: I am not sure how I should address the minister. Is "the minister of bamboozlement" appropriate?

Mr. Speaker: I think not.

Mr. Runciman: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. About a month ago, the minister announced an eight-point plan that was supposed to protect home buyers from the problems being experienced all over this province. The minister's committee to study the problem, another committee of implementation, was supposed to report on December 5, but we have heard nothing yet. The minister now tells the press he will be unveiling a plan which, from all reports, is no different from the one announced last month.

Will the minister tell the House that he will bring in legislation to protect home buyers, or will he simply reannounce the toothless measures that only tell people they might get ripped off?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member raises a question that has concerned all members of this House, the problem affecting people who are trying to get delivery of their new homes. We have been looking at it for some time. We are working with the industry. This is an industry-driven initiative. I have seen its proposal, and it will address most of the problems. I have said, and I will say again, it will not address all the problems, but the best defence any purchaser can have is to get good legal advice before he enters into a deal.

Mr. O'Connor: I wrote to this minister on March 12, 1986, predicting in my letter that unless he brought in legislation protecting new home buyers, with the rising house prices there would be incentives for the builders to try to cancel the deals and resell the contracts at significantly higher prices. Exactly that happened recently in the Markham situation, where I believe 44 people had their contracts cancelled and reoffered to them at $15,000 to $20,000 more. In light of this situation, which the minister has been aware of for all of this year, will he now consider some legislation at least giving interest on the deposits of these people until closing dates?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The case the member raises is one that is still under investigation. There is no determination that there was anything illegal. I do not know this yet, because we have not completed the investigation. It may be unethical, it may be immoral, but we do not know whether it is illegal. Under our legislation, we cannot legislate ethics or morals. What I am suggesting is that when the provisions are brought forward within a week's time, they will address many of the concerns expressed by the member.

Mr. O'Connor: I have received literally dozens of letters from potential new home buyers in my riding, which I have forwarded to the minister, outlining the problems they are facing. As early as March 1986, I also outlined to him a simple four-point or five-point program to resolve most of the problems. He has completely sloughed aside any suggestion of legislation, even in the simplest form, such as the registration of the lots before selling them. Will the minister consider taking that simple step of requiring registration of the lots before they can be sold to a new home buyer?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: As I mentioned yesterday, the previous government changed the Planning Act in 1983 to allow the selling of lots before registration. We are looking at that whole problem. When we address it, the member will see our response to it.

SUNDAY TRADING

Mr. O'Connor: I have a question for the Premier. Last week in the House, the Premier stood in his place and assured employees of this province that they would be protected from being required to work on Sundays. He said he would bring in legislation immediately if that were necessary.

We see in the Globe and Mail of this morning that the Premier has announced he has no intention whatsoever of bringing in legislation to protect workers who are required to work on Sundays. Will the Premier tell us the current position of the government with respect to this legislation?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I did not see the press report this morning the member is referring to, but I said if it were necessary, we would bring it in. The position is quite clear.

Mr. O'Connor: Two years ago at Christmas, there were very few violations of the law. There was general adherence to the law by the employers of this province. Last year a problem began to arise. At present, there have been more than 6,000 charges laid against employers for opening on Sundays. The Attorney General (Mr. Scott) has made it clear in another statement in the press today that he would not bring in legislation because, as he said, the Bay and Simpsons have decided to stay closed.

Mr. Davis: What about Loblaws and Miracle Mart? Why did the Attorney General not talk to them?

Mr. O'Connor: Is it the policy of the government that it has no intention of protecting anyone other than the Bay and Simpsons employees from the requirement to work on Sunday against their wishes?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The policy of this government is very clear. We are waiting for the judgement of the Supreme Court of Canada. I am sure my honourable friend is familiar with that, as one who spends more time practising at the bar than he does in this House. Once we have clarification from the Supreme Court of Canada, we will deal with the matter.

Mr. O'Connor: We would like to know the policy of this government. The Premier says it is eminently clear. On the one hand, he says he is going to bring in legislation to protect employees. On the other hand, he says he is not going to bring in legislation. Yesterday the Attorney General was also quoted as saying he was going to leave to the municipalities as a local option whether there should be legislation within the municipalities to do this.

Will the Premier finally make a statement and tell us where he stands on this important point, as the law is being flagrantly violated every Sunday?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The position of this government is extremely clear, and I am sorry it has been obscured and blurred for my friend opposite. He is probably misinterpreting his difficulties with his own leader on this issue and transposing that on to us. We are very clear. The law of the land stands and should be enforced.

If the member has trouble understanding his party's position, I can be very helpful in elucidating the matter. I have a number of quotations about how he wanted to change the policy, but the law stands. We will enforce the law, and that is where this government stands.

Mr. Pope: What is the law?

Mr. Davis: You do not enforce the law.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question.

Mr. Pope: The Attorney General says one thing, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) says another and the Premier says a third thing. You are all over the map.

Mr. Davis: The Attorney General chastises Simpsons and the Bay and says nothing to Loblaws, Miracle Mart and Dominion.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Davis) will have his turn if he wishes at a later time.

PENSION BENEFITS LEGISLATION

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier arising out of the announcement about pension reform made today by his colleague the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. Kwinter). Since the Premier was on the select committee on pensions, he will no doubt be aware of the consensus of this House with respect to the indexing of benefits. He will know that Treasury officials have been saying in the years since the consensus was reached that there was no financial problem with respect to indexation. He will also know of the accord he signed, which states specifically that the government is committed to introducing the reforms as set out in the select committee which deal specifically with the question of indexation.

Can the Premier possibly justify why, in the one opportunity this House is going to have to discuss pension reform and to deal with pension legislation, the government missed the opportunity and deliberately put off to a task force a relatively simple, straightforward proposition, the idea that people's pensions should not be eaten up by inflation?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I understand the position of my honourable friend on this matter and he understands mine. We want to proceed with the question. I do not want to be unkind, but some people I know have a tendency to oversimplify some very complicated matters. For the sake of a particular ideology, they are prepared to launch into a number of areas whose ramifications they do not completely understand. These people can stand up and make their speeches about it, and I understand all that.

However, it is like a lot of other matters we have to deal with in this House, such as equal pay, pay equity and other things. We have to think out carefully these things and all their ramifications -- their effect on all the people of this province -- develop a consensus and move forward. When we have that responsibility, the member has at least to respect the right of this government to move carefully, to move intelligently and to develop a policy that is sensitive to all sides; and that is exactly what we are doing.

Mr. Rae: The Premier can patronize all he wants, but it is not simply the New Democratic Party that he is patronizing; it is the millions of workers who are being shafted because he is not interested in protecting them. They are ultimately the people whom he is insulting. They are ultimately those whom he is condescending to. Let us be very clear about that.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Rae: The Premier says we know his position. I do not know the Premier's position. All I know is that when it comes to a basic matter of reform, he is stalling. He is stalling and he is denying workers something many executives have. When it comes to the securities field, he is prepared to roll over and give them what they want, but he is not going to do the same thing for the workers apparently.

Can the Premier confirm that it is the policy of the government that so-called surpluses, a concept -- the Premier is correct; I have difficulty comprehending what a surplus is when we believe all the money in the fund belongs to the working people in this province --

14:20

Mr. Speaker: The question is?

Mr. Rae: Can he confirm it is the position of the government that inflation protection aside, surpluses belong to the employers and can be withdrawn by the employers once this freeze period is over?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The minister was very clear on the matter. He said that there will be a freeze on any surplus withdrawals and that then we will look at the situation in the context of inflation protection.

I do not want to sound patronizing, and if anybody sounds that way, it is the honourable member. One of the problems with inflation protection is that the plans that do not have a surplus would be under different financial pressures from the ones that do have a surplus.

It is an easier question for the ones that have generated surpluses in the past because they are there. In a sense, if we just forced those funds to bring in inflation protection, we would punish the more successfully administered funds or the ones that have been oversubscribed. We have to investigate all aspects of this situation.

I think most fair-minded people who look at this would say it is a complicated issue from all sides. There is the question of contributions, the question of inflation protection and the question of to what extent and who carries the liabilities.

Where I disagree with my friend opposite is that he would want to go load, load, load; charge, charge, charge; tax, tax, tax; and tax our province right out of competitive ability. Then he would be the first to stand up and squawk when business moved away.

Mr. McClellan: We do not need a lecture on responsibility from somebody who says one thing in a campaign and another thing from the Premier's office.

I am genuinely mystified by the level of incompetence the ministry has shown in this. The government has now been in office for 18 months. It made a commitment in May 1985 to pension reform that was based on and included inflation protection, and it understood that at the time. Why, during the past 18 months, has the government failed to come up with a single idea, a single proposal, a single concrete, specific legislative reform; and why is it now, in December 1986, appointing a task force to put the question off for another year?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I understand my honourable friend's criticism. Generally, the criticism runs: "Why did you not do this yesterday? Why did you not do this before?" I remind my friend that we have had a very ambitious legislative schedule and have undertaken a great number of significant reforms. I also tell my friend opposite that it takes a considerable amount of understanding of the issue, consensus building and solving some of the real and practical problems that are attendant thereto.

To that end we have the help of highly respected people such as Cliff Pilkey, who understands the difficulty of this thing and who is prepared to help us in devising a policy that is affordable and, at the same time, will protect workers. That is exactly what we said we would do and it is what we will do.

Mr. Rae: The people of Ontario now know they should not have believed the Liberals back when they promised it before. Why should they possibly believe the Premier today?

Mr. Speaker: The Premier.

Mr. Rae: I want to ask the Premier --

Mr. Speaker: Is that not the question?

Mr. Rae: No, it is not.

CORPORATE CONCENTRATION

Mr. Rae: I would like to ask the Premier a question about a matter on the front page of the business news. It is announced that two companies, a United States giant, Shearson Lehman Brothers, and a company connected to the Bronfmans are buying into McLeod Young Weir, making McLeod Young Weir the biggest investment dealer on Bay Street.

It is not until one gets to the back page of the Report on Business that one discovers Shearson Lehman Brothers is now the subject of a major investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which is investigating the possibility of illegal insider trading by officials of Shearson Lehman Brothers in a US$470-million leveraged buyout of Sheller-Globe Corp. of Toledo, Ohio. Just what protection do the people of the province have in this Bay Street giveaway that the Premier's minister announced last Thursday?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend is starting to cotton on to all this inflated rhetoric, such "as Bay Street giveaway," "casino economy" and "wheel of fortune," and suggests there is something untoward about McLeod Young Weir here because of some Securities and Exchange Commission investigation in the US. I think his rhetoric on this matter is a little inflated.

As I understand it, that deal was moving ahead anyway. I think I am right in saying Shearson Lehman already owned 10 per cent of McLeod Young Weir under the previously announced policy and could move up to 30 per cent, which is something it has done. They have taken in additional Canadian capital through one of the Bronfman companies and have established a capital base, which I gather will make them the largest in Canada. It is a Canadian-controlled company, and they will be able to compete internationally for business. I understand that is what has transpired in the entire matter.

The member should stand up and celebrate that and say, "Here we are building Canadian companies with a capacity to compete internationally." Surely that is something of which the member should be proud.

[Applause]

Mr. Rae: Applaud. Please applaud him. I think that is terrific. If the members of the Liberal Party want to applaud corporate cannibalism and corporate irresponsibility, let them. Let them be seen doing that. Applaud again; it sounds terrific.

By way of supplementary, since I did not hear an answer to my question: I did not use inflated rhetoric, I referred to a giveaway, which is the only description a neutral observer could come up with in terms of what the government announced last week. I said, "What protection do Ontario consumers have when it is announced on the back page" -- we do not have Upstairs, Downstairs; we have front page, back page. On the front page, we have the takeovers announced and on the back page we have to find out who is going to jail.

Can the Premier tell us what protection the people of Ontario have from the kind of activities that are going on in the US and how we can be assured that these activities are not going to be imported directly into Canada?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I assure the member that socialism will not be transported from some country into this country. Sometimes it sneaks across the borders and we have these problems.

We still have a Securities Act in this province and we still have an Ontario Securities Commission that is very highly respected right across this country and, indeed, internationally. It will enforce the rule pertaining to the securities industry against anyone who violates that. If the member has evidence that someone has violated that rule, please let us know and we will launch an investigation. I am sure my honourable friend, who has been legally trained, does not want to presume someone guilty before there is a trial. I assume my friend will take that point of view.

We have a Canadian company here protected by the Securities Act and by the Ontario Securities Commission, one of the most efficient regulatory bodies in this province and in this country. If the member has any suggestion that anything untoward is going on, please stand up and tell me and we will have it investigated.

Mr. Rae: Just so the Premier will understand precisely what I am saying, I am saying there is now no way in which this can be effectively controlled or effectively regulated. He has given up the ability to regulate and has said that anything goes. That is the problem and the issue.

Can the Premier tell us the policy of the government of Ontario with respect to the other partner brought into McLeod Young Weir, that is to say the Bronfman interest, the so-called Cemp company, which stands for Charles, Edgar, Mindel and Phyllis, the holding company for the children of Sam Bronfman? Is it the position of the government of Ontario that corporate concentration is a problem?

Why is he asking the standing committee on finance and economic affairs to discuss corporate and commercial concentration when, at the same time, his rules have just been totally thrown out the window by the minister on Thursday and the takeover of Bay Street by large Canadian financial institutions and holding companies such as Cemp is being encouraged?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend is unwittingly misleading himself and a lot of other people about what transpired. It is not a question of anything goes.

Mr. McClellan: Is that supposed to be parliamentary?

Mr. Rae: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander.

14:30

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I withdraw the word "misleading," Mr. Speaker, and I will substitute the word "bamboozle." The member is bamboozling himself and he is trying to bamboozle a lot of other people.

I understand that sort of inflated socialist rhetoric. It is the same kind of thing we heard 100 years ago from his predecessors. That is not what is happening in this province. We still have a Securities Act that will protect these people. It is not a question of anything goes; it is a question of building a world-class, competitive, financial sector in Toronto. We are not prepared to sit by and see this go.

My friend, who has been trained abroad, is oblivious to what is happening in the world, in Tokyo, Geneva, Zurich, London and New York. We have a choice: we are either going to participate in a big way or we are going to be swept out. We are not prepared to allow the latter to happen. The member's idyllic dream of what used to be is irrelevant in the world of 1986 and beyond, because his dream would take us backward, not forward.

Mr. Pope: It is funny the Premier did not say that 18 months ago. I have a question --

M. Fontaine: En français.

M. Pope: Vous avez un problème, Monsieur? Vous avez certainement un problème. Vous n'étiez pas ici pour le vote? Vous n'étiez pas ici.

ALCOHOL ON OPP BOAT

Mr. Pope: I have a question of the Attorney General. It arises out of the police investigation into the former Solicitor General, the member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Keyes). The last page of the report indicates the decision to lay charges against the member rests with the Attorney General and his office after a review of the police report.

The Attorney General indicated, with respect to Sunday shopping, that his role was not to instruct the police in the laying of charges; his role was not to become involved in an investigation into the laying of charges. Is the confusion of this police officer not understandable in view of the fact that the Attorney General, in reality, went beyond his jurisdiction and interfered in what was essentially a police matter; a police matter at the time the offence occurred and a police matter at the time the matter became public? In retrospect, will he not agree that he had no business getting involved in an investigation with the police? Is that really following the process he indicated with respect to Sunday shopping?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question, the Leader of the Opposition for Tuesday only, regrettably. Let me say that the member is quite wrong. The investigation was requested by me because there was pressure from, among others, the opposition party to have an investigation by the police.

We selected the Metropolitan Toronto Police to conduct that investigation rather than the Ontario Provincial Police, who would normally have done it, for obvious reasons. The police made their report and had the advantage of whatever legal advice they wanted from the crown law office as to the sufficiency of the charge. The police, acting on their own, then laid the information, as they are entitled and obliged to do if they have reasonable and probable grounds. That is the whole story from beginning to end.

Mr. Pope: Stan Richards, whom I represented at a compensation hearing before I arrived here, would be pleased to know the Attorney General's opinion of the involvement of members of the Legislature on these matters.

The fact of the matter is that the Attorney General inserted himself politically in something that was police business. It was beyond his jurisdiction. It is not the first time this Attorney General has intervened on a political basis in something he has no business as Attorney General being involved in.

Mary Eberts said on July 3 that the Attorney General, along with the counsel of the Liberal caucus, attended a meeting at which evidence was reviewed and information was exchanged with respect to the Caplan inquiry. He intervened on a political basis and asserted his right to address convocation on June 26, at which he misinformed them as to what was happening in the Legislature and the rules of procedure of this House. Will he not re-examine his conduct and stop the partisan interfering as Attorney General in something he has no business in?

Hon. Mr. Scott: As usual, it is easy for the member to make statements alleging abuse of office inside the privacy of this chamber. We will see to what extent he stands behind his mouth elsewhere. The reality is --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Scott: It will just be a question of time and we will see.

The honourable member knows, because he has had a full account of it, about the small role -- I would not even call it a role -- that I performed in connection with these special committees' work. I also exercised my right ex officio, along with my honourable friend, as a bencher of the Law Society of Upper Canada, to meet with the benchers to give them my assessment of the legislation that confronts this assembly, including the Conservative bill with respect to paralegals. I do not feel I did anything wrong in attending that. I am glad I did, and I think I gave an accurate and fair account. In any event, if I had not, I am sure the honourable member who was then present would have said something. He did not.

[Later]

Mr. Pope: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: To correct the record from the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), I did address convocation after him. I did correct the impressions he left. I suggest the Attorney General read the minutes of convocation, the July 3 transcript, and reassess his position.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. It is a point of information, but if you wish to place a question, please place it.

DAY CARE

Ms. Gigantes: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. I would like him to explain the peculiar position this government and his ministry are taking on child care. He knows he can provide, right now, operating grants and income testing for nonprofit centres, but he does not want to do anything, he tells us, until he can work out some kind of agreement with the federal government that is going to include the for-profit centres.

Can he explain to us why he is going to let tens of thousands of families wait while he works out some kind of deal with the federal government when he could be providing lower cost and greater accessibility than is going to be the case for tens of thousands of families who have their children in nonprofit day care centres?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I understand the honourable member is well aware of the fact that approximately half the licensed day care spaces in this province are in the commercial sector. While she correctly says thousands of families have children in the nonprofit sector, she must also recognize there are equally thousands of families who have children in the commercial sector.

We are concerned about the rates being paid. We are concerned about the inability of low-middle-income parents to get any subsidies. We are concerned about the low wages being paid to day care workers. However, we are equally concerned with both the nonprofit sector and the commercial sector, and it would be quite inappropriate for us to send out the message that those problems will be resolved in only one half of the system and that no attempt will be made to resolve them in the other half.

Ms. Gigantes: What the minister is saying to us is: "I have one big problem. I can solve half of it, but I am not going to do so. I am going to solve the whole thing at once, and I am depending on the feds to do it." When he does that, he is underlining the commitment of this government to the commercial sector of day care.

I ask the minister to justify that position in the light of the fact that he told the day care lobby: "Future initiatives of this government with respect to day care are going to be in the noncommercial area. There is no question about that." There is some question about it today.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: There are two distinct issues in the member's question, and the first one is our future intent. We have clearly indicated in the whole area of social services that in the future we are going to put more stress on the nonprofit sector than on the commercial sector. That is a fact; we have not changed that.

However, at the same time, the member knows that in many communities in this province a high proportion of spaces is available only in the commercial sector, and in some communities, even large ones such as Hamilton, 85 per cent of the spaces are available only in the commercial sector. We cannot turn our backs on those parents and those children who choose to use that option.

The member is also aware of the fact that all the ministers of social services will be meeting with the Honourable Jake Epp on January 26, and he has indicated to us that at that time he will give some sense of where the federal government is going. Subsequent to that meeting, we will make our own Ontario decisions on how we are going to deal with the situation, based upon that new information.

14:40

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

Mr. D. R. Cooke: I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Culture. Many newcomers and many long-term immigrants to this province, particularly senior citizens and women, require interpreter services to access the government, especially in cases of emergency and, I might suggest, in dealing with social services. Does the government have any plans to train these interpreters and to provide them for those in our midst who are not comfortable in either English or French?

Interjections.

Hon. Ms. Munro: I think one of the first bodies that needs some help in interpretation is this Legislature; but I do not know whether it would qualify for any of our grants or programs.

None the less, translation and interpretation are among the crying needs of many of our multicultural communities, especially long-term immigrants approaching senior ages.

The ministry has a number of programs I am sure all members are aware of. We start by training community interpreters, which is becoming more and more a professional occupation. We also give dollars to official interpreter service organizations, and we are increasingly funding community groups that also pay for volunteers who do the interpreter training.

The ministry is very cognizant of the need for interpretation as a professional service, and we are providing services to other ministries. For example, we have a magazine called New Beginnings, which is our first signal to other ministries to take advantage not only of language translators within our ministry but also those within the community.

UNEMPLOYMENT IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Pope: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Will the minister indicate to the Legislature the state of unemployment in northern Ontario, the problems of the resource sector and what he intends to do to help the workers in the industries of the north?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: As has been mentioned on several occasions, we are not happy with the unemployment rate in northern Ontario. We want to see it come down, and we are working very hard to put in programs that will bring that unemployment rate down.

Mr. Pope: This minister said the same thing in the spring of 1986 and has done nothing about it since then. The minister will know that the overall province-wide rate of layoffs declined by one per cent in 1986 from 1985, even though 1985 was significantly higher in layoffs, by 16.5 per cent, than 1984. He will also know that although the provincial average declined by one per cent, the layoff rate increased by 254 per cent in northwestern Ontario, by 47.9 per cent in northeastern Ontario and by three per cent in eastern Ontario.

There has been a significant increase in layoffs in northwestern, northeastern and eastern Ontario. The government has done nothing about it. When will it start helping the workers of these regions?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: The member fails to state such facts as that there are 156,000 more people working in Ontario, that we have the lowest unemployment rate in all Canada and that we are working very hard.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Algoma would like to ask a question if the members will allow it.

HAZARDOUS SPILLS

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment, who is consulting behind your chair, Mr. Speaker, if he will return to his seat.

[Applause]

Mr. Wildman: Note that only some applauded.

I would like the minister to explain why his ministry charges Ontario Hydro for a spill that is estimated at 8.8 grams of polychlorinated biphenyls into the sewers of this city, spills that have occurred at Gloucester Street and Adelaide Street, but at the same time does not charge Ontario Hydro for spilling thousands of times as much PCBs into the Mississagi River in northern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As the honourable member may know from previous answers I have given in the House, I as the minister do not instruct the investigations and enforcement branch to lay charges against any specific person who is in violation. It has a blanket authority from me to investigate all these matters, regardless of where they are in the province and regardless of whether they are in the public sector or the private sector.

When the investigations and enforcement branch has gathered sufficient evidence that may used in a trial, it then proceeds with the laying of charges and the establishing of a court date, along with the court, of course, and they proceed at that time to address the matter.

If any evidence is forthcoming, and if the member has some evidence that would be helpful in regard to a particular court action, we will be pleased to have that evidence. I would suspect as well that our ministry, as it does in almost all these cases, would have the investigations and enforcements branch investigate and determine whether charges should be laid.

Mr. Wildman: Surely the minister is aware that Ontario Hydro spilled into the Mississagi River waste oil from a transformer it was moving at concentrations of 70 per cent PCBs. That is almost pure PCBs, but the ministry has not yet charged Ontario Hydro. However, the spills I refer to that are subject to prosecution in Toronto were measured in parts per million.

Surely the minister is concerned about the effects on the tourist industry and the fact that the fish in the Mississagi River may pick up the PCBs, and surely he is concerned that Ontario Hydro would allow such a spill to take place even after it was directed by his own ministry to ensure that the open drain to the river was cut off before the transformers were moved.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: In my capacity as Minister of the Environment, I share the member's personal concern, as a representative in the area, for activities that are detrimental to the environment. I am aware of the situation. I know the member himself was deeply interested in it and immediately, as it happened, drew certain things to the attention of our ministry that were very helpful.

I should point out that when the charges were laid, for instance, in the Hydro case in Toronto, they were laid after several months of investigation; they were not laid immediately. I know that in the situation the member has drawn to my attention again, because of its seriousness, our investigations and enforcement branch will be conducting an investigation. When sufficient evidence has been put together to proceed with a court case, we will be happy to indicate, through the means of a press release, that charges have been laid.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Morin: I would like to address this question to the Minister of Education. Recently I attended a parent-teacher association meeting of St. Matthew's Junior High School in Orleans. More than 500 parents were present. They expressed their concern that the province is not moving quickly enough to provide capital funding for separate schools, which are suffering from overcrowding because of the shift of students to these schools under equal funding legislation. What is this minister going to do to resolve this problem of overcrowding?

14:50

Hon. Mr. Conway: I thank the honourable member for his question and for his many vigorous representations on behalf of his constituents in that important part of the national capital area. As I have indicated to this House on previous occasions, the new government has, in its first 18 months, substantially improved the capital grants to Ontario school boards.

In so far as the matter of separate school extension is concerned, we made a commitment when we took office that we would not release any of the funding for extension purposes until the law was enacted. That was done in late June 1986. Since that time we have released about $33.2 million in capital grants to help those extending separate school boards meet the kinds of needs the member has identified.

As I recall, about $1 million of that capital grant allocation has been awarded to the Carleton Roman Catholic Separate School Board to help with projects, such as St. Matthew's school to which the member made reference, but we are not going to solve the problem overnight. I want to assure the member and his constituents in Carleton East that we will do everything possible to meet the real needs of those fast-growth areas.

MINISTRY ESTIMATES

Mr. Cureatz: I have a question of the Minister of Correctional Services. Now that he has been relieved of one of his responsibilities, will he be so kind as to assure myself and this House that he is negotiating feverishly with his other cabinet colleagues to ensure that the estimates of the Ministry of Correctional Services will be coming forward as soon as possible, since they always seem to be getting bounced?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: Yes. We are looking forward to the estimates for Correctional Services and have conferred with the Treasurer's office. At present, the date happens to be approximately late January.

Mr. Cureatz: Since the minister has had so much time in the preparation of his estimates, will he at least assure me that he will anticipate the kinds of questions he and I have already discussed and that those inmates who are going through the system will be getting adequate health inspection and dietary evaluation to ensure that all possible avenues are looked at in terms of their rehabilitation?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I assure the honourable member that we are doing everything possible to ensure that all inmates' rights, whether in the field of human rights or that of dietetic conditions, are responded to appropriately.

NUCLEAR ARMS FREE ZONE

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is for the Premier. In the past few weeks, I have been receiving a lot of letters of congratulations for the Legislature about the passage of resolution 1 to make Ontario a nuclear weapons free zone. The page has just brought the Premier a sample of my first question.

A lot of these letters have lines in them, such as the one that follows from young Sheila Brown, "Where do we go from here to make sure that this resolution is implemented in a meaningful way?" It has been almost three weeks. What is the Premier doing to make the will of the Legislature the policy of the government? Can we soon expect a government statement such as the ones passed in Manitoba and the Northwest Territories?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I recall the debate and I congratulate the honourable member for putting forward the resolution, as he did two or three years ago. I believe I spoke on that resolution at the time and supported it. Even though I do not vote on private members' resolutions, it is one I would have supported as a statement of principle and of our collective protest against the insanity of the global arms race. That being said, how does one translate that statement or sentiment? The things the member is talking about mean different things to different people. I viewed it in a moral context. How would we translate that into specific public policy? How far does it go? What does it actually mean?

My friend, familiar with the rules of this House, as others are, will be aware that to take a resolution, a statement of principle -- and I think that came forward eminently clearly from this House -- and translate that into a specific act is sometimes a different question. If my friend has specific ideas on how this thing should be translated into legislation -- he has just sent me something; I am not sure what it is, but I will read it -- then I am obviously interested in the ideas he has. I do not have a specific piece of legislation in mind.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I am always willing to help. The first piece of information is a statement of the same principle, but it would be a government statement, which I think is an important distinction for us to make as our next step.

Following that, I ask the Premier to look at the whole question of tritium exports. We have total control over the production of tritium through Ontario Hydro; yet there is a major question as to whether we should be exporting tritium. Can the Premier tell me at this point what his government's policy will be on the export of tritium, especially since the Canadian fusion fuel technology project under the control of Hydro is currently discussing using tritium technology with military interests in the United States?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The export of tritium is a federal responsibility. We are of the view that it should not be exported for nonpeaceful purposes. We have said that before. That is the view of this government. Therefore, any exports will be checked out with that policy in mind.

SUNDAY TRADING

Mr. Cordiano: I have a question for the Attorney General. On January 9, 1986, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) stated with reference to Sunday shopping, "If the law is not changed, thousands of unemployed will be denied the opportunity of part-time work." Will the Attorney General comment on the question of whether part-time work would be created in this province as a result of the opening up of Sunday shopping?

Hon. Mr. Scott: A complete analysis has not been done to answer that question, but it is unlikely any part-time work will be created in significant amounts by any such change. I point out to the honourable member that this was the expressed opinion of the Leader of the Opposition on January 9. He now has been overruled by the member for Oakville (Mr. O'Connor) and a different opinion has been taken.

Interjections.

Mr. Cordiano: I would like to ask the Attorney General by way of supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the member will wait until the members allow him to be heard. We will just wait.

Mr. Cordiano: Does the Attorney General agree with this comment made by the Leader of the Opposition at the same time: "The government is willing only to `review' the legislation with no commitment to broaden it. The Progressive Conservatives are prepared to stand up and be counted, to say we must change the law to greatly expand Sunday shopping in response to demand"?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The member for Downsview does not understand. They have changed their minds since they saw the poll. Now they take a different view. That question and answer are out of date. That was given in January. One must be up to date with that party. The member for Oakville will give him the true answer about where that party stands today. Who will tell him where it stands next week I cannot imagine.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to tell the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) he cannot ask his question for a while. Order.

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the newly appointed acting Solicitor General. I raise this question with some trepidation about his role as Solicitor General, knowing how harshly he responds as Attorney General to questions from the opposition.

A week ago in this House, I raised a question about the concerns that have come to my attention from volunteer firefighters who are being denied the opportunity to study on weekends at the Ontario Fire College to upgrade their education and training. These are volunteer firefighters. I know the minister is up to date on this issue.

Can he give me some indication what his ministry has done since a week ago with respect to reviewing that particular problem? His ministry is not providing the funding or the instructors for the education of these volunteer firefighters.

15:00

Hon. Mr. Scott: I want to tell the honourable member, who is the chairman of the standing committee on administration of justice, that the new acting Solicitor General is much better behaved than the Attorney General and is very grateful for the question he has asked.

I am aware of his concern. I am not aware of how to respond to it, but I will be schooled within the next few hours and will report to the honourable member very quickly. I thank him for his question.

Mr. Brandt: I am not through yet. By way of supplementary to the newly appointed Solicitor General, who will apprise himself of this problem very shortly: there are some 300 applications that have already been set before his ministry with respect to volunteer firefighters who wish to study on weekends. These are individuals who are taking their own time to provide themselves with the knowledge they need to assist the various small communities throughout our province. I have personally received more than 20 letters within the past week, since I made the statement in the House, concerning their interest in receiving the education that can only be provided by the Ontario Fire College.

Mr. Speaker: What was the question?

Mr. Brandt: In his newly appointed role, will the Solicitor General lean over and talk to the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) about getting adequate funding to provide the budget that will be necessary to fund the year 1987 and provide these people with the kind of training they absolutely have to have?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am even more grateful for the supplementary question, which allows me the opportunity to share with the honourable member the view I know he has of the important contribution volunteers make, not only to the fire departments across the province, particularly in the smaller communities, but also to the auxiliary police forces.

[Applause]

Hon. Mr. Scott: I thank the honourable members for the applause, which gave me an opportunity to think deeply about this question.

Both the member for Sarnia and I share the view that everything it is possible to do should be done within the limits of fiscal responsibility to ensure that the appropriate education is made available at appropriate levels to those who can benefit from it in providing this voluntary service. It may be that my friend and I can go jointly to the powers that be to make this important request. I am very pleased to have his co-operation and assistance.

If the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) would ask questions such as that, he would get answers.

FUNDING OF POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr. Warner: I have a question of the Minister of Colleges and Universities. Is the minister prepared to investigate the massive budget cuts that were announced at Centennial College?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I remember the days, and they were not so long ago, when we used to stand up and say, "I want to thank the honourable member for the question." I want to thank the member for the question, because it gives me an opportunity to correct the misinformation he has provided for us. There are no massive budget cuts at Centennial College or at any other community college. In fact, year after year, the budgets of our community colleges have increased by some 10.9 per cent. Mr. Speaker, if you call that a budget cut, I do not know what.

Mr. Warner: It is unfortunate the minister is not better informed. According to the president of the college, it has a deficit of $2.7 million, which by law it is not permitted to have. That will result in cuts. The staff and students are asking that the minister investigate, have a look at the books and find out what is going on at Centennial College.

First, will the minister investigate these cuts? They are being made. Second, because the college has experienced an increase in its student population, can he guarantee that whatever cuts must be made to match the deficit, there will be no loss of jobs and the quality of education will not be compromised?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I can guarantee my friend that the steps we have taken with Centennial College and our other community colleges in the past 17 months have dramatically improved the quality, not only at Centennial but also at colleges right across the province.

He refers to a deficit. I do not think the appropriate definition for a deficit is a budget cut. There was a rather dramatic increase in funding at Centennial and many additional professors and teachers were hired there. We are aware of a small deficit in the budgetary process, but given the increase in student population, we are sure we will be able to cope with it. We are looking at it, but it is not a budget cut, as my friend suggested, that the ministry imposed upon Centennial College.

NUCLEAR SAFETY

Mr. Gordon: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. More than three months ago, his government promised the people of this province that it would provide a safety panel made up of international experts to look at the question of nuclear safety and to look at nuclear plants from the point of view of design and operations, as well as emergency plans to protect the population. Three months has gone by. Where are the plans?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: This has to be very clear. The Ministry of Energy does not participate in emergency plans, which are the responsibility of the Ministry of the Solicitor General. I am sure the honourable member is aware of that.

We are looking for the kind of person who can fulfil the role of inspecting our plants across Ontario and, I hope, extending them. The Honourable Marcel Masse, the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, has agreed to give his wholehearted support to that kind of an examination. It is under way. Within the next short while, I expect to have the name of the chairperson who is going to do that very important examination.

Mr. Gordon: I am surprised at the answer. In August, more than three months ago, the minister promised he would establish a safety panel which would ensure that nuclear power plants in this province would be looked at by international experts. Darlington has proceeded on schedule and both Bruce and Pickering are in the final stages. How is it going to be possible to make design changes or to change the operations of those plants, given the time that has gone by? The minister is making it almost impossible for that panel to have any kind of substance to it. When is he going to act?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I have already told the member that we are acting. We are doing it in a very responsible way. The individual who will head up the examination and take the lead role in examining the safety of our reactors in Ontario has to be very carefully chosen. That is under way. It is a very important undertaking by a government that fully understands that it has to be responsible to the people.

We are going to examine our Candu reactors as they have never been examined before. That is why we need the kind of person I am going to make sure performs that very important task. The people of Ontario are going to be well satisfied with the person who is chosen, and the member will be satisfied too.

PROTECTION FOR HOME BUYERS

Mr. Philip: I have a question of the minister of commercial relations. Has the minister been quoted accurately in saying that he will not do anything for the 40 home buyers who have agreements to purchase homes in the Bolton area from the Georgian Group? Is that a correct statement? Can he not do anything? Why does the minister not introduce legislation to deal with this problem?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I said I will not do anything until I get a full report. I have talked to one of the principals of the company, who maintains he had a conditional sales agreement which was perfectly legal and binding. I have had officials from the Ontario New Home Warranty Program meet with the municipality and with the builder. I have yet to receive their report. Until I do, I do not know what it is that I am acting on.

15:10

PETITIONS

SUNDAY TRADING

Mr. Gordon: I have a petition here that was collected by Edna Stillar and Linda Tchorzewski of Sudbury with regard to the issue of Sunday shopping. For the edification of the House, both of these women were threatened with being arrested by the mall manager when they were objecting on that Sunday to the opening of the Loblaws Superstore in Sudbury. The petition reads as follows:

"Stop...just for a moment. Do you want our community, where we all still have a family life, to become a hectic, commercialized city where the almighty dollar means more than you and I?

"Look around you. We now have store hours 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., Monday through Friday and all day Saturday for your convenience. Can we not hold on to our one day to spend with our families and friends? Look at your groceries. Are you really buying anything that could not wait till tomorrow? Look at the faces serving you. Don't they have a right to be home with their families?

"Listen to our plea for your help. Sunday is a religious day, a family day, a quiet day, a day we all look forward to. Help us protect Sunday."

More than 1,179 people signed this in the space of a couple of hours.

I have a second petition here this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: Addressed to whom?

Mr. Gordon: The first one was addressed to the Solicitor General.

Mr. Speaker: Generally, they are supposed to be addressed to the Lieutenant Governor.

Mr. Gordon: They are addressed to the Lieutenant Governor.

Mr. Speaker: Oh, I see.

Mr. Gordon: Now that you have made it quite clear to me, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that very much. That is one for you.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr. Gordon: This petition was gathered by a very well known teacher in the Sudbury region, Mrs. Vi McDougall, a librarian at Sudbury Secondary School. This petition has 8,615 signatures on it. It is entitled, Discrimination.

"I support the business and technical teachers in their appeal to have their business and trade experience acknowledged as contributory years in superannuation since those same years were necessary for entrance into the teaching profession.

"I feel that since the business and technical teachers had no option in the decision as to whether they belong to a registered pension plan or no pension plan, this is a form of discrimination."

L'OUVERTURE DES MAGASINS LE DIMANCHE

M. Guindon: J'ai deux pétitions sous forme de lettres de gens de la circonscription de Cornwall. Elles sont adressées au procureur général (M. Scott) et se lisent comme suit:

"Je désire, par la présente, vous exprimer ma désapprobation concernant l'ouverture des magasins le dimanche. Tout comme mes concitoyens(nes) de Cornwall je crois qu'une telle pratique donnera lieu à une détérioration de la vie familiale. Je ne crois pas qu'une telle pratique puisse se justifier en pensant qu'elle réponde à un besoin essentiel. Je vous invite donc à faire tout en votre pouvoir pour que la loi du dimanche soit maintenue et je vous remercie de l'attention que vous porterez à cette requête et des gestes que vous allez poser à cet égard."

La première pétition porte 135 signatures et la deuxième, dans le même esprit, en porte 301.

SUNDAY TRADING

Ms. Gigantes: I have a petition which has been drawn up by the members of the St. George's Anglican Church in Ottawa in protest against the opening of stores other than convenience stores on Sunday in defiance of the law. They ask that Sunday be preferred as a quiet day for family get-togethers, for church attendance and relaxation.

It is signed by 47 members of the congregation of St. George's. I would like to deliver it to the Attorney General.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PENSION BENEFITS ACT

Hon. Mr. Kwinter moved first reading of Bill 170, An Act to revise the Pension Benefits Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am pleased to introduce for first reading the Pension Benefits Act, 1986. This act replaces the Pension Benefits Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1980. It includes many important reforms and changes that will be of major significance to the retirement future of the people of Ontario.

POWER CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Gordon moved first reading of Bill 171, An Act to amend the Power Corporation Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Gordon: The members of this Legislature had a pretty good example this afternoon of how much care and concern this government has when we talk about nuclear power. This is exactly what this bill is about.

This bill would see that no further nuclear power plants would be built in this province. It means we would move into a future that was unclouded by the fear of nuclear accidents. It would recognize that this government has taken no steps to see that radioactive wastes are transported and hauled in a manner that is safe. I believe this bill is absolutely essential at this time.

Mr. Speaker: The member was getting more into a debate than an explanation.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Speaker: Before I call for orders of the day, I would like to inform the members that, and this is very important, pursuant to standing order 30, the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling) has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Energy (Mr. Kerrio) -- this was yesterday -- and the matter will be debated at 6 p.m. later this afternoon.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I wish to table the answers to questions 407, 489, 490 to 493, 498 and 504 in Orders and Notices, and the interim answer to question 494 [see Hansard for Monday, December 15].

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon. Mr. Nixon: There is a remote chance there might be some votes based on work we do this afternoon in committee when that order is called a bit later. It is agreed that any votes to be taken from the committee divisions will be held at 5:45 p.m.

OLEOMARGARINE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Riddell moved second reading of Bill 14, An Act to amend the Oleomargarine Act.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: As the members will recall, the purpose of this amendment is to alter the description of the test used to determine the level of colour in margarine. The amendment removes the requirement that the test result be "read under conditions substantially similar to those established by the United States Bureau of Internal Revenue." The US standards of testing now are obsolete, making the existing section of the act unenforceable. The amendment involves the section of the Oleomargarine Act that prescribes the shades of yellow that can be used in margarine sold in this province.

The act deals with other aspects of the manufacture and marketing of margarine as well, such as product composition, labelling and advertising. This amendment will renew enforcement provisions in a way that the objectives of this legislation, and consumer protection particularly, will be achieved.

15:20

Mr. Andrewes: In the absence of the member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson), I am pleased to indicate to the minister and the government our party's support for Bill 14, a long-awaited piece of legislation in Ontario, one that is going to have a ringing significance throughout the province. I am sure the minister will be delighted to have it as part of a jewel of his crown.

The legislation enshrines the historic view of this Legislature -- is the minister paying attention? -- that it is appropriate in the province to give a measure of protection to the dairy industry from a product that is similar looking, and some might say similar tasting, but certainly lower in cost, a product that is known as oleomargarine or margarine. I am sure there are many honourable members, including the minister, who well remember the days when one took the little pouch and the coloured tab and squeezed it and made it whatever colour suited one.

Although we support the extension of this protection to the dairy producers, it is incumbent on this Legislature, from time to time, to review these statutes so we can assure ourselves that they do serve the best interests of the public. That is why we are here. Certainly, a statute such as this one serves the best interests of the agricultural sector at large.

We know the dairy producers of the province support the legislation, support the protection that the legislation provides; and that the bean producers, whose product is subsequently made into oils, perhaps have a different view and, from time to time, have indicated their opposition to this legislation.

It is fair to say the minister will agree that certain consumer groups have indicated their concerns about this type of legislation, if not this specific legislation. Ontario is the only province in Canada that provides this protection to its dairy industry. For those who are protected under these statutes, it is incumbent on them to defend vigorously the position they wish this Legislature to hold to, so that as legislators we can act in the best interests of the public at large and, more particularly in this case, of the agricultural sector at large.

Without any reservations, with those brief comments, I indicate our party's support for Bill 14.

Mr. Hayes: On behalf of the New Democratic Party, I am here to speak in support of Bill 14, the Oleomargarine Act, which is very important because it does give protection to the dairy industry in Ontario. We know that if this is not passed and is not amended to make it enforceable, the industry will be affected financially. As we know, the agricultural industry has had enough problems.

It is very important also that it protect not only the dairy industry but also the consumers in Ontario from the possibility of margarine being disguised as butter in some restaurants, for example. At the same time, the consumers should also have the right to know exactly whether they are being served butter or a type of margarine.

It is a bill that is long overdue, and we should proceed without delay to pass it. On behalf of the New Democratic Party, I support Bill 14.

The Deputy Speaker: Any questions and comments?

Mr. Pollock: I may have a conflict of interest because I am a dairy farmer and that may put me in a different stead, but anyway, I support it. We should have some protection out there and distinguish butter from some of the cheaper spreads. I want to put that on the record.

Mr. Breaugh: I am rather shocked and taken aback, Mr. Speaker. A member has just declared both a conflict of interest and his intent to vote on a matter. I am sure you will want to rule on that.

The Deputy Speaker: I take it that was a comment rather than a point of order.

Mr. Breaugh: You called for comments, Mr. Speaker, and that was what I gave you. If you do not want them, you should not ask for them.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any further questions and comments?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I want to thank --

Mr. Sterling: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I believe you were asking for comments and reply on a speech by the member for Essex North (Mr. Hayes). You did not call for further debate.

The Deputy Speaker: That is correct.

Mr. Sterling: If the minister is summing up at this stage of the game, this is a second reading debate.

The Deputy Speaker: That is correct. I take it there was no reply.

Mr. Sterling: I want to speak in support of this bill. I want to thank in particular the many milk committees from the various dairy farmers across this province that have taken the time and effort to visit each and every one of their MPPs to ensure that this act is passed.

I want to indicate to the Legislature, however, my dismay at the length of time it has taken the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) to impress his House leader and the Liberal government that this is an act that is very important to the agricultural community and that it should be passed forthwith.

If the Minister of Agriculture and Food had taken the time to come to our Agriculture and Food critic and the other caucuses, he would have found that he could have had speedy passage of this last May when it was introduced. It has taken this government some eight months, during which time there has been no protection for our dairy farmers, when this act could have been passed prior to taking the summer recess last year.

Therefore, I indicate my wholehearted support for this act but express my dismay at the Liberal government's priority in dealing with agricultural problems and agricultural legislation when this act could have been passed six to seven months ago.

The Deputy Speaker: Any questions and comments? Any debate?

Mr. Villeneuve: I too want to be on the record as being in favour of Bill 14, An Act to amend the Oleomargarine Act. I want also to thank the milk committees in the riding that I represent for having made representation.

An additional concern I want to warn the minister about is that there is always a possibility dairy products will be mixed with nondairy products. I hope the minister is satisfied this will not occur and the nondairy spreads, as we know them, will be easily recognizable by colour, as has been traditional. I caution him that the blending of dairy and nondairy spreads must be prevented at all cost.

15:30

Mr. Harris: I do not plan to be very long. I understand our party is supporting this bill and I understand why. Before I make my few brief remarks, I want the farmers to know I am supporting this bill; however, I am supporting it because there does not appear to be any will or initiative on the part of this government to take this issue -- the bull by the horns, so to speak -- and deal with it in a far more responsible way than this bill does.

If the intent is to support those grocery stores in the province of Quebec that line the Ottawa River and that great border between Ontario and Quebec and adjoin the ridings of Nipissing, Timiskaming, Cochrane North and Cochrane South, what we create in essence is a very flourishing trade that does not benefit the farmers, because those retailers are buying margarine and want to buy margarine.

It does not benefit the consumers, who end up having to travel some distance to get it. It does not benefit the margarine companies in Ontario or our corner stores, which earlier in this session this government purported to want to support with some hokum, cooked-up bill on illegally selective beer and wine in corner stores. I might add that as I read the bill, it left only about three in my whole riding of Nipissing eligible to sell it. I checked with two of them and they said, "We do not want the bloody stuff in our stores." Demarco's Confectionery was one that would have met the Liberal requirements. The owner said he was not the slightest bit interested in having beer and wine in his store. A couple of others were there as well. Anyway, I am digressing.

What bothers me is that in my part of Ontario, this piece of legislation does not do what it is intended to do. It does not help the farmers. In fact, it penalizes those stores in my riding that lose margarine sales as merchants drive across the border of Quebec to bring it in. Of course, it hurts consumers who have to drive some distance. As you can imagine, they cope as best they can. They pool their resources. The margarine comes across the border in truckloads and then is distributed. I hate to mention it, but they probably load up on a case of beer while they are there as well.

I express those concerns to the Minister of Agriculture and Food and to the government and suggest this issue is one that ought to be resolved in a more businesslike and organized fashion. Having said all that and not being the government, where I would have dealt with it much differently were I in that position, but being only in the opposition, I will support the bill.

Mr. Hayes: I do not know whether I heard the previous speaker properly, but I think I heard him say the bill was not going to help dairy farmers in this area, which it does. My understanding of the bill is that it stops products that could be passed off as butter from coming across the border from Quebec into Ontario. The minister might correct me on that, but I am sure that is so. It will help enforce the existing act to stop a product that is disguised as butter from coming into Ontario.

Mr. Harris: Let me say in reply that the member somehow or other thinks this government or any government has the power to stop a consumer from going across the border into Quebec to a grocery store and buying some margarine and, God forbid, bringing it back into his home. I do not know where he got the idea that this is illegal.

We know this government has the Ontario Provincial Police investigating everything under the sun. There are more investigations going on. I am surprised the OPP force has not tripled or quadrupled in size to deal with the multitude of investigations of activities that this government has fouled up and cannot administer or govern properly.

All I am telling members is what is happening and will continue to happen in my part of the province in northern Ontario. Stores in northern Ontario lose margarine sales. Consumers are inconvenienced in getting the product they want. If that is the net result of what is happening, it is of no benefit to the farmers either.

Perhaps the minister has a magic wand he is going to wave that tells me this practice will cease. I doubt it, but I will be the first to congratulate him if that is the case.

Mr. D. W. Smith: I want to make a few comments on Bill 14 as well. Since I come from the riding of Lambton, which has quite a few dairy farmers, I thought I should make these comments.

I have worked with the dairy industry in a couple of jobs, and I know the dairy industry needs all the support it can get. It produces a product that I believe is superior to margarine. The only difference I can see, and I have eaten both products, is that one spreads a lot better when it comes out of the refrigerator. That is about the easiest way to tell the difference between these two products. As for eating them, in my mind, butter is by far the superior product, and I think we should protect it.

Leaving the colour different from margarine will tell people who buy the two products what they are getting. We have to protect our dairy farmers. They work seven days a week. Not too many industries can say they do that. Therefore, on behalf of the dairy producers of Lambton, I am pleased to support this bill.

15:40

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I thank my colleagues in the House for their continuing faith and confidence in this minister and this government to bring in good consumer protection legislation.

There was a suggestion that this legislation supports the dairy industry. That is not the only reason we are bringing it in. This legislation is not merely an attempt to protect the dairy industry; the primary function of it is to provide protection for the consumers of this province.

We have found a number of restaurants in this province serving butter-coloured margarine as butter in the past 18 months. We know there are fraudulent cases out there where margarine is being passed off as butter. Because of the wording of the existing legislation, we are not able to enforce it. That is the reason for the amendment to the Oleomargarine Act.

There was also a comment that Ontario was the only jurisdiction that had this colour differentiation in butter and margarine. At one time, all provinces had separate colour standards, when only white or near-white was allowed. Ontario maintained the separate standard as a consumer protection measure. Other provinces removed the colour restriction; however, I understand Quebec has decided to reintroduce a colour standard similar to Ontario's. I refer to a statement by the Quebec Minister of Agriculture and Food, Mr. Pagé, which was recorded in the October 1986 issue of the Quebec Milk Producer magazine. It reads as follows:

"A regulation of coloration similar to the one existing in Ontario will be introduced. Moreover, we will have margarine put in different displays in stores so that the consumer can differentiate margarine from dairy products. This will mean better consumer protection and awareness."

The bill is all about consumer protection. Some mention was made about consumer complaints. The Consumers' Association of Canada sent a newsletter out this past spring and asked consumers whether they were happy with the colour of margarine. In response, they received two letters that were somewhat critical of the colour differentiation we have. There are not too many consumer objections to this legislation.

The member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes) mentioned that the bean producers of this province objected to this legislation. I do not think that is the case, because the dairy industry of this province uses a lot of the products of the bean producers. As a matter of fact, many of the products used in the manufacture of margarine are imported products which are not benefiting our bean producers one iota. The bean producers are not concerned about this act. They are only thankful that they are able to sell their products to the dairy industry of this province.

I think I have responded to most of the concerns expressed. Once again, I thank the House for its support.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

House in committee of the whole.

EQUALITY RIGHTS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming consideration of Bill 7, An Act to amend certain Ontario Statutes to conform to section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I would like to indicate that it has been agreed that if there are any votes on the sections we deal with in committee, the votes will be held at 5:45 p.m.

The Deputy Chairman: Is there unanimous agreement that the vote be held at 5:45 p.m.?

Agreed to.

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: We do have a bit of a problem. There is something out of order. On the previous vote, the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock) declared a conflict of interest. He then proceeded to stay in the chamber, and I heard him vote in favour of the bill. It seems to me this is a matter you have to take under consideration.

The Deputy Chairman: I am sure you know this comment was made in the House, not in the committee.

Mr. Warner: The committees are an extension of the House.

The Deputy Chairman: Thank you. We are on section 18. It is the amendment proposed by the member for Ottawa Centre (Ms. Gigantes), subsection 18(3a). The member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) had the floor yesterday.

Mr. Harris: Before you get to that, I wonder whether members would allow me to indicate that we have amendments coming, I believe to section 18 and to section 70, which deal with the proclamation sections of the bill. They are being retyped and will be circulated as soon as they are available. I wonder whether I could have permission from the committee to deal with those sections when we get to the proclamation section, recognizing that one of them deals with section 18, which has to be amended as well, if that would be in order.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I understand the amendment relates to the proclamation date of section 18. I do not understand why section 18 itself is amended under the proposal that is made.

Mr. Harris: Perhaps I could ask the committee whether, when we get to end of the bill, we could deal with whatever amendments we have. They are not before me; and I apologize, I am not sure what sections they fall under. I am trying to serve notice that we do have amendments in those areas, and if we have perchance passed the section they fall in, perhaps we could agree to go back to it at that time.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The concern I have is that if, as I understand it, there is an amendment that will affect the proclamation date or the process before proclamation of section 18 of the bill, I would have no difficulty with agreeing that that course be followed; but if there is an amendment to the meaning of section 18, that is something else and I would like to consider that question.

Mr. Harris: It has to do with the proclamation only. I think it appears in a couple of places in the bill, and we have to place amendments in a couple of different sections. By the time we get to section 70, we will have already passed one of those sections. I am sorry I do not have them in front of me; they are being retyped. They do not deal with subsections 18(1) to (5); they deal only with the proclamation date of subsections 18(1) to (5).

Hon. Mr. Scott: On the understanding that it does not deal with subsections 18(1) to (5) but deals with the proclamation date of that section alone, our party consents to that.

Mr. Shymko: It would add subsection 18(17), referring only to the proclamation aspect of that section.

The Deputy Chairman: Is the committee in agreement?

Agreed to.

On section 18:

Mrs. Marland: In rising to continue to speak to the amendment that would permit 16- and 17-year-olds who withdraw from parental control to rent accommodations, I was saying yesterday that the question is ever ongoing as to who is responsible at what age. An example of that is how we discuss at various times who is responsible enough to drink, to drive or to fight for his country.

15:50

In speaking in support of this amendment, I think one point that needs to be made is that we are dealing here with 16- and 17-year-olds who withdraw from parental control. The focus should be on that aspect. It may be an assumption in this debate that those 16- and 17-year-olds are beyond or outside of parental control. That may not be the fact at all. It may be that the 16- and 17-year-olds choose to withdraw from parental control because there may not be any parental control.

In some examples I am aware of, there are 16- and 17-year-olds whose parents simply do not care about them. Tragically, we also have 16- and 17-year-olds who live in homes where they are very badly abused; yet they choose not to go to the authorities about it and be involved with social service agencies and children's aid societies. Where these young people choose to withdraw technically from parental control, they should be allowed to do that. In those very bad circumstances to which I have referred, I would be the first to encourage a 16- or 17-year-old to leave a violent, abusive situation.

Once those 16- or 17-year-olds make the choice to have a chance with their lives and are able to support themselves, and at 16 they can legally work and maybe a social service agency to which they have been referred is able to give them some other kinds of support, it follows that those young people should be allowed to rent accommodation.

It has been suggested that this amendment may make it easier for people in this age group to leave home and set up housekeeping with their friends, and the easier we make that possibility for them the more young people will do it. As a mother of three people who are now in their 20s and knowing a lot of their friends as they went through those ages, as glamorous and as exciting as it sounds to leave home and get away from parental control, in the clear light of dawn they often realize that being at home and having all the provisions of life there for them is ultimately the real choice.

That is the ideal choice, it is easier for them, and they are happy if they can possibly cope with it. Therefore, I do not see this amendment as something that will encourage young people to leave home. Rather, I see it as an amendment so that those who need to leave home at least have that opportunity.

The other young people, whom we call the runners, are running anyway, and there is no way they can stay at home. They end up sleeping in hallways, underground garages and so forth. We have an obligation to make accommodation as accessible as possible to them.

I know we are concerned about the landlord. It is very clear that the landlord is protected. A landlord is not obligated to accept a 16- or 17-year-old any more than an 18-year-old, a 19-year-old, a 40-year-old or a 50-year-old. The landlord is entitled to decide whether the proposed tenant, the applicant, is creditworthy. He has means and resources to establish whether the proposed tenant is creditworthy. If he obtains the appropriate credit rating, then the 16-year-old or 17-year-old can be as eligible a tenant as any person of any age.

I recognize that 16-year-olds or 17-year-olds do not go to a landlord with a long record of being good tenants in terms of their behaviour or their ability to pay their rent, but it is my understanding that young people of this age can legally contract for the necessities of life. This being so, obviously a roof over their heads has to qualify as a necessity of life.

We all know people in this age group who are very worthy managers of their lives. They have chosen, for whatever reason, to forfeit their opportunity for education and to go out to work and take on other responsibilities. It is a very fine line to deny someone who can legally work the right to contract legally for a roof over his head.

I see this amendment as being very necessary to encourage young people who may have all kinds of problems in living at home. As I said at the beginning, their homes may not be suitable places for them to live for any number of reasons. How much more sense it makes to let these young people have the opportunity to rent their own accommodation, take on their own responsibilities and go out to work and have a job to provide for themselves. We may well find that rather than causing additional problems with this age group by this amendment, we are giving them an opportunity to prove that if they are creditworthy they can be as suitable tenants as anyone of any other age.

We have an obligation. Instead of writing off young people with a sweep of the hand and assuming that all 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds who do not choose to live at home under parental control have some major problem and are anti-society and are not well-adjusted individuals, we may find among this age group a number of young people who are very worthy members of our society, who are willing to work and provide for themselves, but need a chance to provide for their own living accommodation.

Mr. Warner: I am very pleased to support the amendment put forward by my good colleague the member for Ottawa Centre. As we have gone through this bill, it has become increasingly apparent to all of us that the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) would be in very serious shape if he did not have the good assistance of the member for Ottawa Centre. She has done a superb job.

This amendment will be of assistance to the many community organizations that work closely with troubled youths. There are a number of community groups that have found it very frustrating over the years to be of total assistance to young people who are in difficulty. This amendment will be most welcome to many of our community groups that are working with young people. I am very pleased to see the amendment come forward and to learn that all three parties support it so that it will become part of the bill.

16:00

[Interruption]

Mr. Wildman: Why are the Tories still debating Bill 7 up in the gallery?

Hon. Mr. Scott: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: They are Liberals here in support of the ban on adults-only housing.

Mr. Shymko: The member for Ottawa Centre may be surprised that I am supporting her amendment, but I join my colleagues in stressing the importance of this amendment. I know that over the years the problems of that sector of society, our young people of the age of 16 and 17, have been in limbo, not only in terms of the Human Rights Code and human rights legislation in this province, but also in other legislation in other areas.

It is a dilemma. We cannot perpetuate the status quo of that limbo. This amendment is the first attempt seriously to address and resolve that problem. As I watch the Attorney General, who is nodding as I mention this dilemma, I know he also shares these concerns. He has indicated that it should be resolved in due time, whatever that means. It may be in some other amendments in the future. I think we have an opportunity with what is being described as an omnibus bill to address the issue and to resolve it once and for all before the Christmas recess.

I have no problem with this amendment not only being passed but also being proclaimed following royal assent. I do not know whether the Committee for Equal Access to Apartments, which has written to my leader and to our caucus members and, I believe, to all members of the Legislature outlining its concerns, has had an opportunity to address the committee on this issue. They may have and they were probably very eloquent in pointing out the plight of these young people.

I do want to stress that in looking at the growing statistics on unwed mothers, we see an increase of single parents, of unwed mothers at a very early age, some from the ages of 14 and 15. I refer to the submission from the co-ordinator of the Committee for Equal Access to Apartments, Bruce Porter, who mentions a figure of more than 6,000 young mothers who are 16 and 17. I do not know whether these young mothers are wed or unwed, whether or not they are single parents. I imagine a vast majority of them are. Although many may live with their families, they may have other accommodation. They are legally independent, and the problems of housing and accommodation are very crucial.

I am sure if one were to hear some of the horror stories, one would not even hesitate in the passage of this amendment in view of these tragic situations of unwed young mothers who have applied for an apartment or tried to have a lease and were refused because they are not protected today by the Human Rights Code. As we address the protection of human rights of various individuals not covered, it is incumbent on all of us that we give protection to these members of our society, many of them in destitute situations.

I do not have to tell my colleagues that someone at the age of 16 can join our armed forces and can fight and die for this country at the age of 16. Yet, for some reason, although that criterion is accepted for an individual of responsibility in making the ultimate sacrifice for this country --

Interjection.

Mr. Shymko: Yes, one can. At the age of 16 one can join the armed forces. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, you can correct me. It is my understanding that one can. Maybe they are not regular forces.

One can get one's driver's licence at the age of 16. At the age of 16, one can legally quit school and be independent. One is not forced to continue his education. There are many aspects where one treats young people in that category as mature, responsible, independent adults. There is an aspect of legal independence from parental care, as pointed out in the letter from Bruce Porter.

One can see many examples of that independence and legal autonomy. When we give that legal independence, we should stress the importance of enforcing leases that are signed by these individuals.

There is a great deal of misconception on the part of landlords who are confused about whether a lease signed by someone who is 16 or 17 would be legally enforceable. I think it is. The Attorney General may provide a stronger clarification of that misconception, but there is a misconception that if someone of that age signs a lease, it is not legally enforceable. I do not think that is the case.

They are protected by our common law, and therefore we should not hesitate in supporting this amendment. I am very pleased to support the amendment to subsection 18(9).

Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: Ms. Gigantes, do you have another amendment to subsection 18(7)? The one I have here is subsection 18(7). I also have an amendment to subsection 18(9).

Hon. Mr. Scott: As I understand it, subsection 18(7), subsection 18(9) and subsection 18(14) have motions in the name of the member for Ottawa Centre and relate to the same issue, which is the removal by amendment of the phrase "business inconvenience" in each of those subsections.

Ms. Gigantes: I would move that clause 16(1)(a) of the Human Rights Code, 1981, as set out in subsection 18(9) of the bill, as reprinted by the Attorney General, be amended by striking out "business inconvenience" in the fifth line.

The three motions I have on this section essentially deal with the same matter. I wonder whether I should read them all at once. We cannot vote on them that way, though, can we?

The Deputy Chairman: They are all on subsection 18(7). Are you planning to move that one later on?

Ms. Gigantes: Yes. Right. Forgive me, Mr. Chairman.

The Deputy Chairman: Ms. Gigantes moves that subsection 10(2) of the Human Rights Code, 1981, as set out in subsection 18(7) of the bill, as reprinted by the Attorney General, be amended by striking out "business inconvenience" in the seventh line.

16:10

Ms. Gigantes: Very briefly, my concern in proposing the removal of "business inconvenience" is that I feel the defences we have provided in the amendments which we approved before and now are printed in the bill are adequate as a defence for a business that it is too costly to provide accommodation for the employment of the physically handicapped.

The section we are addressing here says, for example, the concern of the business for "undue hardship on the person responsible for accommodating those needs" shall consider the cost, the "outside sources of funding, if any, and health and safety requirements, if any." It seems to me that to have "business inconvenience" in addition to those defences is to trivialize a very serious matter. Surely, if there is an inconvenience to the business that is substantial enough that it should be considered a defence in this kind of situation, that convenience will be something that can be measured by cost.

As we have already provided the defence of cost for a business that is called upon to accommodate a physically handicapped employee, to suggest that we also take account of "business inconvenience" is to stretch matters beyond the rights we are trying to establish here. It will make it very difficult for a physically handicapped person to achieve employment and to ensure that employment will be offered and provided through the accommodation that the business undertakes.

Mr. Philip: I would like to speak to another aspect of the amendment my colleague is making. It seems to me one of the most fundamental principles democratic societies hold is the principle of freedom of religion. In the case of a number of my constituents who are of the Sikh religion, wearing the turban and the bracelet is an essential component of that religion.

There are basically two cases that deal with this, and I will not go through the long discourse I had originally planned.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Will the member explain the direction he is taking? It is interesting.

Mr. Philip: If he will give me a minute, I am sure I will say some things complimentary in an indirect way to the Attorney General. I am sure he will appreciate that.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Do not worry about that. Say something complimentary about the section.

Mr. Philip: The two cases I am referring to are Bhinder versus the CNR and O'Malley versus Simpsons-Sears.

In Bhinder versus the CNR, the Attorney General will acknowledge that Mr. Bhinder had excellent legal counsel and representation and that a very forceful case was made to the Supreme Court by his then solicitor. The issue was whether the dismissal of Mr. Bhinder by the CNR because of his refusal to comply with a safety regulation requiring the wearing of a safety helmet breached the Canadian Human Rights Act. In that case, it was held that the statute did not protect Mr. Bhinder. In other words, despite the excellent legal counsel Mr. Bhinder had at the time, he lost the case.

The result may be contrasted with the second decision, in O'Malley versus Simpsons-Sears. Counsel for O'Malley held that under the Human Rights Code, the failure of the employer to attempt to accommodate Miss O'Malley's desire to be exempted from working on Saturdays, based on her Seventh Day Adventist faith, did breach the Ontario code. The contrasting results of the two cases can be explained by the difference in the two statutory schemes.

What I am trying to emphasize is that while the Bhinder case might not automatically apply in Ontario were it tried in Ontario courts for similar reasons, none the less I believe people such as those of the Sikh religious persuasion require some additional protection of their religious beliefs and the right to wear turbans in the work place. I suggest the inconvenience of the employer is not an adequate excuse to interfere with the freedom of someone to practise the religion of his conscience.

What my colleague is attempting to do, after considerable work that I must say we have put in by reading those two cases and in meeting with people in the Sikh community, is at least to open up and give some additional protection that the Sikhs have not had in the work place.

I hope the Attorney General will not require me to go through the whole Bhinder case with him to persuade him I am right in my views on this, but rather will say in an accepting way that probably the very excellent reasons put forth by the solicitor on behalf of Mr. Bhinder are equally valid today; that they should be held as forcefully now by all people as they were held by the solicitor representing Mr. Bhinder when he made his excellent presentation, and that the Attorney General will now accept those reasons and the amendment.

Mr. O'Connor: I indicate to the committee, on behalf of our party and all those members of our party who are here present, that we will unanimously accept and endorse the amendment proposed by my colleague the member for Ottawa Centre.

The section was put into Bill 7 as an amendment to the Human Rights Code for the purpose of assisting handicapped persons in the job market, for the purpose of requiring employers to provide assistance to handicapped persons and to groups of handicapped persons in the place of work. My friend described it as the inclusion of a defence. I would rather look at this section as a positive step in favour of and for the assistance of handicapped persons rather than in the way she put it, as a defence available to the employee. I suggest that is a rather negative approach to things.

My friend assumes somehow that most employers will attempt to resist or defend against initiatives by handicapped persons to obtain assistance in the place of work. Quite frankly, my experience in this regard -- and I have had some experience in my riding from various organizations that I belong to -- is that this is not always the case. Very often there is considerable co-operation from employers, and considerable initiative is taken by employers to assist handicapped persons in their employ.

That may not always be the case, but I like to be positive and to think this section in general was proposed as a positive measure to assist handicapped persons. However, the use of the phrase "business inconvenience" as a way in which employers might opt out of the clause makes it a little too easy and perhaps goes a little too far.

There are several other methods by which a reasonable balance or compromise can be reached between the necessity of the employer to provide the accommodation and the needs of the handicapped person. I refer particularly to the wording used in the section, which includes cost and makes specific reference to outside sources of funding in regard to assessing the cost. I think that is sufficient if the commission finds the cost is overwhelming.

We hope that in the initial phases of hearing cases of this nature there will be a bias within the commission in favour of the handicapped people in this regard and that it will arrive at a set of rules and regulations and precedents that are of great assistance to handicapped persons, but on the other hand strike a balance that is not onerous, or overly so, on employers of handicapped persons.

Therefore, my party and I will be supporting the deletion of the term "business inconvenience" as something that is quite nebulous and perhaps not as well defined as the other terms used in the section and therefore should not be there.

16:20

Hon. Mr. Scott: We should make it plain, first of all, that this government is anxious to extend -- indeed, moved the provisions that were designed to extend -- the right of handicapped persons to complain to the human rights commission in the event that access was not available to them. We have taken that initiative; we are proud of it, we think it is long overdue, and we do not deviate from it in any particular.

In modelling the legislation, we had the advantage of the experience of the federal government, whose legislation we have duplicated. Even more important, and perhaps to some as compelling, we have had the example of the late socialist government of Saskatchewan, which used precisely this language and insisted on business inconvenience as one of the criteria in its legislation.

There was a lot in what it did then. To explain, let me see whether I can unpack the legislation. Before doing so, let me say that this section, as far as I can tell, has nothing to do with the Bhinder case. The Bhinder case and the O'Malley case were decided differently, because the O'Malley case was decided under the Ontario Human Rights Code, which has an explicit definition, and the Bhinder case was decided under the Canadian Human Rights Act, which does not.

Mr. Philip: That is what I said.

Hon. Mr. Scott: That is what the member said, but it has nothing to do with this legislation except to point out that, in this legislation, Mr. Bhinder would never have faced the problem he faces under federal legislation. If the member were making a case for an amendment to the federal code, I could understand it; it is not necessary here. If Mr. Bhinder were dealing with an Ontario-regulated employer, he would find that the standard of the section is apt, according to the Supreme Court of Canada's test in O'Malley, to meet his concerns. That is point one.

Second, let us understand that neither cost nor business inconvenience nor any of the other criteria are defences. The defence to a discriminatory act -- for example, the refusal to provide access -- is undue hardship, and the section currently makes that plain; I quote: "... unless it is satisfied that the needs of the group of which the person is a member cannot be accommodated without undue hardship on the person responsible for accommodating those needs."

Thus, undue hardship is the defence, following the Saskatchewan model, which this legislation adopts. However, it is a defence that is limited to certain criteria, because the section goes on to say that in looking at what undue hardship is, you can consider -- it does not say "only," but by implication only -- "the cost, business inconvenience, outside sources of funding," which would be an offsetting factor, "if any, and health and safety requirements, if any."

The honourable member proposes that business inconvenience should be removed as one of the criteria against which undue hardship will be measured. That will mean undue hardship will be referrable only to the question of cost, outside sources of funding or health and safety requirements.

Let me say to the member that I am entirely sympathetic to the proposal and in the end, since I know how to count, will probably submit to it; but I am concerned about it.

Let me give an example. If an employer carries on business in a historic Ontario building and if access to that building is requested by a handicapped person who may require an elevator to get to the services provided on the second floor of that building, the owner of the building or the business, in resisting the application for access, will be obliged to show that it would be a matter of undue hardship to install the elevator in that historic building.

Would it be undue hardship in terms of cost? No. The building may be owned by such a munificent employer as the provincial government, Ontario Hydro or some conservation authority. Would it be restrained on the grounds that there were outside sources of funding? No, because that does not prevent the introduction of the elevator; it simply says how the elevator costs can be defrayed. Would there be any health or safety requirement that would prevent the introduction of the elevator? Of course not.

The result is that the tribunal may find itself confronted with the fact that because "business inconvenience" and the meaning that has been given to it in existing legislation have been removed as a criteria for undue hardship, that argument cannot be advanced.

That is not the end of it. "Business inconvenience" has been given a broader meaning in the cases. For example, there may be an organizational inconvenience that has significant effects on the respondent employer or owner because of business disruption. Timing can be a business disruption that is not effective with respect to being measured in terms of costs. There may be an adverse long-term or short-term effect on productivity, efficiency or effectiveness. Modifications may be required that make unreasonable demands on an employer's other employees that would not be reflected in costs. There may be a significant loss in capacity to earn revenues, taking into account the ability of the respondent to absorb the loss, which may not figure as a cost factor.

I make these points to the honourable member, and I note as the member for Oakville (Mr. O'Connor) has noted, that this is by no means an exhaustive list of the considerations that will be removed from the board of inquiry by this amendment. We are making a determination here -- as I say, I may very well end up supporting it, knowing how to count -- that will alter in a significant way the Human Rights Code in this province, not only with respect to the handicapped but also, because the amendment is made to section 10, with respect to any other act of systemic discrimination to which section 10 provides the defence.

I would not want the members of the Legislature to vote on this without understanding that in legislation of this type there is a subtle balance to be drawn between, on the one hand, the rights of the handicapped to whom we owe access to commercial premises; and on the other hand, from time to time, employers and businessmen and businesswomen who after all are driving the economy of the province and the country by creating jobs, to save them not only from cost implications that produce undue hardship but also from business inconvenience that creates undue hardship. To say as the member for Ottawa Centre and the member for Oakville do that business inconvenience adds nothing to the defence of undue hardship is to ignore the reality and the decided cases.

Therefore, I caution all members of the Legislative Assembly to think very carefully before this fundamental change is made. In principle, it is an attractive one. Even the horrid socialist government of Saskatchewan blanched at doing this. Why? Not because it was horrid and socialistic, but because it carefully recognized the balance that had to be drawn between rights on the one hand and rights on the other.

That is the amendment. The following two proposals are sequential amendments. Both the New Democratic Party and the Conservative Party, a recent convert to such considerations as this, have agreed to support the amendment and so, with reluctance, will I.

16:30

Ms. Gigantes: This has been a delightful contribution by the Attorney General. I would like to refresh his mind as to who first brought in amendments on this subject during our discussions on Bill 7 in committee. While he and his staff worked very hard once the initial amendments were moved or tabled in committee to try to work out an agreeable way of proceeding in this matter with all-party support, he is quite wrong to take credit for having initiated this effort, and I am sure his staff will remind him of that.

When he talks about Saskatchewan and the government of Saskatchewan, what he is referring to is a very progressive government for its time that moved well ahead of this province in looking for a way to help handicapped people find real, true employment opportunities. While we give them credit, we are not bound in 1986, many years after they moved, to provide exactly the same kind of legislation.

The third point I would like to make, and I know other members of the Legislature will want to consider it very carefully, is that the very excellent way in which the Attorney General has described the profound implications of "business inconvenience" is a lesson to us about the dangers of leaving that phrase in the legislation. He has just given us an example of what a good lawyer can do with that phrase. That is exactly what we have seen.

Somebody such as the Attorney General or even a little fraction less than the Attorney General in terms of capability, if hired by an employer in cases of this nature -- the employer could be of any size; the Attorney General insists on talking about small businesses driving the economy of the nation and so on, but we can be talking about very large businesses. Unless there is some way of costing it, we have just had a lesson from the Attorney General as to how convoluted what I will call a defence can be. He has given us six or seven suggestions as to how this phrase "business inconvenience" can be put to good use by employers who are resistant, for whatever reason, about defeating the application of a handicapped person to have accommodation in a place of employment.

The other little lesson I would like to draw to the attention of the Legislature without provoking any ill will around here, because we will be looking for lots of goodwill when we get to other amendments today, is that I have the very distinct feeling that had the Attorney General not known that two of the three parties would be supporting this amendment, he would have supported it himself on behalf of the government. Finding instead that the Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party had come to that place of understanding where they were going to remove this phrase from the bill, he decided he was going to stand forth as the shining knight of small business, the component of our economy that drives the nation's economy.

It is so nice to see him cast himself in that role. He feels so uncomfortable whenever he is doing things such as discussing equal pay or matters of that kind about which any of the friends of the Liberal Party who happen to be business people and have the ability to make contributions to the Liberal Party for electoral purposes and so on might feel a little clammy-handed and a little nervous and anxious.

It is a very nice little role he cast himself in this afternoon. But he should be ashamed. He knows perfectly well we should not have this phrase in our Human Rights Code. He has just proved to us why we should not have it. I hope he will not be so grumpy when we pass it as not to accede to our desire to have it proclaimed and operative in the way he would like it in Ontario in 1986.

Hon. Mr. Scott: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: The record will reveal that the amendments about the handicapped were proposed in my statement to the standing committee on administration of justice first, before anybody else, on January 29, 1986, and were moved, as I understand it, although I do not now have the record, by a Liberal member of the standing committee.

Mr. Chairman: That is not an appropriate point of order.

Mr. Philip: I would like to respond to the minister's comments. I find the suggestion that somehow Bhinder would have won in an Ontario court or indeed that O'Malley did win in an Ontario court to be outside any sense of the history of what has happened. In the case of O'Malley, the court ruled there was an onus on the employer to try to remedy the problem and only if reasonable grounds had been taken by the employer would he have the right to continue to discriminate. That was the ruling in O'Malley.

What the minister fails to take into account is that since the O'Malley case, the Ontario act has been amended. The case of O'Malley was decided under the old statute, but it was decided that there was discrimination by consequential discrimination as a result of common law rather than as the result of anything that existed in statute. When the new Human Rights Code came in, it was decided to incorporate the concept of constructive discrimination, which is similar to consequential discrimination. That happened in 1982, except they allowed for exemption where the requirement was reasonable and not made maliciously.

If we do not take out the section that my colleague is trying to remove, we are leaving in the argument of reasonableness. Lawyers I have shown this to, having looked at both the O'Malley case and the one the Attorney General was more directly connected with, the Bhinder case, have advised me that under the new legislation, the Ontario law since 1982, both Bhinder and O'Malley would probably have lost.

Hon. Mr. Scott: O'Malley won.

Mr. Philip: O'Malley won by the old statute.

Hon. Mr. Scott: They could not lose now if they won before the amendment.

Mr. Philip: If it were retried -- the Attorney General is trying to play games. If the O'Malley trial were to come up today rather than pre-1982, O'Malley would probably lose.

Hon. Mr. Scott: This section is better than when it was tried.

Mr. Philip: That is not the opinion of human rights lawyers I have consulted.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I thought it was your opinion.

Mr. Philip: I am sorry the Attorney General has such a tender ego that he cannot accept that some of his colleagues in the legal profession have opinions different from his. I am sorry if I have upset him by bringing up a case that he lost in the Supreme Court; that was not my intention. I was simply trying to argue the merits of the case and express my disappointment that he happened to lose the case on behalf of his client.

I am not a lawyer, but I do come from a business background, and listening to the comments of the minister, I wonder how one can have a negative effect on productivity without having an effect on cost. I ask the minister, how can he explain that? Can he explain that to any business manager? The fact is that one cannot, and to suggest that this is somehow needed for business is pure nonsense. The bottom line is the ledger, and if it does not have a direct effect on cost one should not allow the discrimination.

Motion agreed to.

16:40

Mr. Chairman: Ms. Gigantes moves that subsection 16(1a) of the Human Rights Code, 1981, as set out in subsection 18(9) of the bill, as reprinted by the Attorney General, be amended by striking out "business inconvenience" in the fifth line.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: The next amendment the chair has is an amendment to subsection 18(13) of the member for Oakville.

Hon. Mr. Scott: If I may intervene, the member for Ottawa Centre has a third member's motion that deals with "business inconvenience."

Mr. Chairman: Yes, that is subsection 18(14). To get this argument out of the way, does the committee give unanimous consent to go to subsection 18(14) and then back to subsection 18(13)?

Agreed.

Mr. Chairman: Ms. Gigantes moves that subsection 23(2) of the said act, as set out in subsection 18(14) of the bill, be amended by striking out "business inconvenience" in the sixth line.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: We are back to subsection 18(13).

Hon. Mr. Scott: Subsection 18(11) is the sports amendment, which was designed to permit young girls to complain to the Ontario Human Rights Commission. The party of the member for Oakville vigorously dealt with this in committee, and I want to know whether it has any amendments to propose to this section.

Mr. O'Connor: He is out of order. Sit him down.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Hon. Mr. Scott: They have no amendments.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Harris: We may have a number of amendments to several sections of the bill. We may have a number of things we want to talk about in the bill. I remind the Attorney General that when he gets up on his feet, he is on television and out of order with some of his supercilious, stupid comments.

Mr. Chairman: Order. Back to the member for Oakville.

Mr. O'Connor: I thank the Attorney General for his very useful intervention.

Mr. Chairman: Order. Let us not prolong it. Mr. O'Connor moves that subsection 18(13) of the bill, as reprinted by the Attorney General, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"(13) Subsection 20(4) of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

"(4) The right under section 2 to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of residential accommodation without discrimination because of family status is not infringed by discrimination on that ground where the residential accommodation is a unit of a condominium and the bylaws of the condominium corporation restrict occupancy of the units on the basis of family status."

Mr. O'Connor: By way of brief background explanation to this amendment, I point out that at the committee stage of the hearings of this bill, subsection 20(4) of the Human Rights Code was deleted after considerable debate. I think it was unanimous among the members of the committee.

We received considerable evidence from a considerable number of delegations, some 20 to 25, with respect to that matter and the difficulty and the problem that was arising in allowing that section to stand. The problem, as enunciated by the groups that came before us, related solely, exclusively and only to apartment buildings, particularly in the Metropolitan Toronto area, and particularly, I might say, in the Etobicoke area. The member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) is still here.

The case was made by groups and individuals that, because of the right of apartment owners to designate their buildings as being for adults only, many were availing themselves of that right and were therefore severely restricting the amount of accommodation that was available, particularly to lower-income families, single-parent families and younger families whose only option is apartment living, who have not accumulated sufficient capital to own their own premises. The committee saw in its wisdom -- with which I agreed entirely at the time -- that this was a serious problem that had to be met, and we therefore deleted the subsection completely.

There was no discussion whatsoever of the effect of deleting this subsection on condominium buildings in this province. I and, I warrant, the other members in the committee simply did not put our minds to the condominium situation. It was brought to my attention after the amendment was passed -- and in fact, legal opinion since then has confirmed this -- that it could affect condominium corporations in Ontario, which, according to their bylaws, have had the right to pass an adults-only restriction.

We can make a clear distinction between the apartment building situation and the condominium corporation situation. The condominium corporation is an organization of owners of property. Each of the dwellers in that building is the owner of the fee simple of his particular unit. In many instances they have invested significant amounts of money, as have most home owners; it is perhaps the largest single purchase the average family makes during its lifetime. They have a significantly different interest in the dwelling in which they are residing from that of an apartment resident, who is of course renting the premises on a short-term basis, usually for a period of one year.

The situation is such that they are, by statute passed by this Legislature, permitted to pass bylaws regulating and governing the conduct of the various owners of those buildings. They are permitted to determine what the owners can do, because of the unique situation of their living in premises that are owned by them in cheek-by-jowl situations, sharing common hallways, sharing common recreational facilities, sharing the landscaping outside the building and sharing the underground parking facilities, a situation that is quite different from that of the other type of fee-simple owner who resides in his own home on a street and does not live in close communion with his neighbours, nor does he share facilities in common with his neighbours, as is the situation within a condominium building.

Thus, there is a real distinction between condominium owners and apartment dwellers, and condominium owners and other types of owners of fee simple. I want to make the case for that clear distinction or difference among these other types of dwelling situations. There is that real distinction in law, which is a law established, as I say, by this Legislature through the Condominium Act.

The majority of owners within a building have the right in law, as is not the case with the owners of single-family dwellings on a street or in a residential neighbourhood, to get together and decide in their own best interests the kinds of rules and regulations that should apply to all of them within that building. If there are some within the building who do not like the rules and regulations, they can, in the democratic process, argue against the passage of that bylaw and vote against the passage of that bylaw. But if the bylaw is passed, they then agree, through their acceptance of the condominium corporation rules as they enter the building, to abide by the balance of the bylaws that affect all of them in that situation.

16:50

The practical effect of my amendment will be significantly different vis-à-vis condominium corporation owners and apartment dwellers. As I said at the outset, it was necessary, in my opinion, to pass the amendment deleting section 24 as it related to apartment building owners because of the number of apartment owners who had availed themselves of the right to designate their buildings as adults-only.

We heard figures that in some places -- one that comes to mind is the city of Etobicoke, where 73 per cent of apartment owners designated their buildings as adults-only. It is a totally unacceptable situation to exclude the numbers of young families and single-parent families from occupying 73 per cent of the apartment buildings available and to leave them a mere 27 per cent. That is not a situation we could live with, and it is a situation we all saw necessary to change.

In the condominium situation, the figures are quite different. It is estimated that approximately five per cent or fewer of condominium corporations in Ontario have chosen to designate themselves as adults-only. Thus, the difficulty from a practical point of view does not exist, as was expressed to us by many delegations before the committee.

For the most part, owners of condominiums are older. After raising their families in single-family dwellings or on farms or in other types of accommodation where they have had to be involved in the maintenance and upkeep of their dwellings, such owners have chosen in many cases to retire to a building where much of the upkeep is done by staff hired by the corporation. These people are, for the most part, older retired people.

The amendment I am proposing would leave open one additional option to people in terms of residential living. We would still have the single-family dwelling unit. We would still have the entire apartment stock in the province, and we would still have 95 per cent of all condominiums. We would still have co-operative housing and the vast array of other housing available to families with children.

The net effect of my amendment would be to reserve a very small segment of the housing stock to leave open the option for persons in the categories I have mentioned to choose a lifestyle which, after long years of hard work and the investment of most of their savings in the condominium, should be available to them.

I am fully in favour of extending our nondiscrimination laws as far as possible. It is not possible, though, to be totally nondiscriminatory against all segments of our society. We accept discrimination against certain groups; for instance, against children with respect to a vast array and area of situations. We do not allow children under age 16 to drive an automobile. We do not allow children under age 18 to contract. We do not allow children under certain ages to marry.

We do have defensible and reasonable laws and restrictions with respect to children. We should be prepared to extend to other segments of society certain rights and freedoms that they, after many years, have enjoyed and have earned.

I do not think there will be any significant impact on the right of children to find accommodation or on the right of young families to find accommodation as a result of this amendment, but it will have the significant positive result of allowing a small segment of our community to continue with the option it has chosen of enjoying the hassle-free environment, shall I say, of condominiums, which in most cases have been developed with the expectation that there would not be children on the premises. That is, the recreational facilities, the swimming pool and other amenities in existing adults-only condominiums have not been developed for the most part with children in mind and are therefore not amenable to young kids in the buildings. It may be quite an inconvenience to families with young children; in many situations, that would be the case.

Quite frankly, as the Attorney General said in relation to another amendment, he can count and I can count, and since I realize that both the government members and the New Democratic Party members have indicated their opposition to my amendment, I am not optimistic that this amendment will pass. Notwithstanding the fact that my argument is perhaps overwhelming for some -- it certainly was for the members of my caucus -- they may yet, as my colleague has indicated, succumb to the wisdom of this argument. However, I ask them to give serious consideration to the fact that very few people will be affected by this. It will allow a certain segment of our community to preserve a lifestyle it has chosen. They wish to continue to reside in buildings of this type.

I welcome questions from any of the members with regard to this.

Mrs. Grier: I regret to have to say to the member for Oakville (Mr. O'Connor) that, having listened very carefully to his argument, I cannot, and neither can my party, support the amendment he has put before the committee this afternoon.

The arguments he has put forward in favour of allowing condominiums to have this right to discriminate could well be extended into other forms of housing. What is to prevent a subdivision or a townhouse complex that becomes a condominium, or something else, saying it wants that right?

While he is arguing that only five per cent of condominiums are now adults-only, I think that was the situation some time ago when the Human Rights Code was originally passed and allowed discrimination against renters in apartment buildings. I suspect many more condominiums may well be forced to take advantage of the loophole that the member will be creating if his amendment is passed.

Also, acceptance of this amendment may well cause confusion in those buildings where some units are rented and some are occupied by their owners. How do we get into who has the right to discriminate and who has not?

I am very pleased we are today going to eliminate section 24 of the Human Rights Code, because I think that is once and for all saying there are no classes of accommodation in this province within which discrimination on the basis of family is allowed. That is as it ought to be. I am delighted, certainly on my own behalf and on behalf of many tenants, that after a very long struggle we have come to this point to eliminate this section of the Human Rights Code.

I know how touchy the Attorney General is about taking credit for all amendments that come before this House, but I do not think he can contradict me if I say it was my amendment that was first moved in the standing committee on administration of justice, accepted by the Attorney General and has now, I hope, been accepted by all three parties.

Acceptance of that amendment corrects a long-standing injustice against families. In the context of Bill 7, we have had much discussion of family values and the need to strengthen the family, and by adoption of this amendment we have an opportunity to take very positive steps in that direction.

17:00

It is worth pointing out that the disproportionate number of people affected by the ability to discriminate against children in the rental business are women. Most of them are poor women. The vast majority are sole-support parents. Eleven per cent of all families in this province are single-parent families, and one child in 10 is in a single-parent family.

At the hearings into this clause, we heard moving stories about the problems faced by those families in trying to get accommodation. We heard of families forced to move when they had children. We heard of mothers who were on their own having to ask their spouses to join them in signing a lease so they could get accommodation. We heard from people in shelters and transition houses who were absolutely in crises because they could not find accommodation as the vacancy rate had fallen.

We heard a lot of evidence that it was not the choice of tenants to have adults-only buildings; it was the choice of the owners of those buildings. By and large, the people who lived in adults-only buildings were not necessarily seeking a childfree environment; they were seeking well-maintained, affordable housing. As the vacancy rate has dropped, less and less well-maintained, affordable housing has become available to lower-income families with children.

In Etobicoke, the campaign to eliminate this section began in 1981, shortly after the Ontario Human Rights Code became law. There had been discussion in the House about this clause when the Ontario Human Rights Code was adopted. At that time, both the Liberals and the New Democratic Party moved that it be deleted. In fact, we are almost at the fifth anniversary of the adoption of the Ontario Human Rights Code. It received royal assent on December 11, 1981. Ever since that date, tenants and the tenants' movement have been trying to have subsection 20(4) deleted.

The minister at the time the code was adopted said it was an issue of housing supply and that municipalities that were experiencing problems could apply for special legislation. It was amply shown in the hearings into this bill that the special legislation, as it was enacted to the city of Toronto, did not work. Etobicoke decided to seek legislation in 1983, and when we came before the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments, that special legislation was supported. However, it was again obvious that it was not going to be the way to go and that under the Planning Act we were not going to be able to ban adults-only apartment buildings.

The member for Oakville has alluded to the fact that it was mainly people from Toronto and Etobicoke who appeared before the committee. That may well be the case. The committee met only in Toronto. However, the problem in finding accommodation for families with children is not only in Toronto. Especially in cities such as Kitchener, Cambridge and London, there has been great support for the removal of this clause.

The accord between the Liberals and the New Democratic Party called for an expansion of the budget and the role of the Ontario Human Rights Commission in the fields of discrimination and housing. I hope that in supporting this amendment today, the Attorney General will look back to that clause in the accord and begin to put in place the mechanisms that will make sure this clause is enforced when we repeal subsection 20(4). Not only must we make the legislative change, but also we need much better awareness that this discrimination will no longer be allowed.

We also need much better enforcement by the Ontario Human Rights Commission of the clauses in the code that apply to housing. We need sensitivity on the part of the members of the commission and its staff to the problems faced by low-income families. It is not good enough for a family to call and claim it may have been discriminated against only to be told someone will get around to looking at it two or three months from now. The problem is too acute for that to be allowed to happen. We must have faster intervention when complaints are received.

We must have a review by the commission of the application forms now used in many apartment buildings for those seeking accommodation. Tenants are asked about their income, their marital status and a number of other things that can be used to discriminate between them when they seek accommodation. There has to be some action to look into that.

When we looked at the report of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, we found that in 1985-86 there were only 13 awards against landlords as a result of complaints about discrimination. The total damages awarded amounted to less than $9,000. When one thinks that the total settlement in all areas under the code was more than $1 million, one can see not that there is no discrimination in housing but that there is no adequate enforcement and not enough proactive activity on the part of the human rights commission to make sure discrimination can no longer exist.

As I said, it is a historic occasion to eliminate this section of the code. Unfortunately, it has taken a very long time to come to this point. I certainly appreciate the support that tenants have had from all sides of the House, and I look forward to a new day dawning, I hope, after 4:45 today. We cannot wait much longer.

Mr. Philip: My colleague the member for Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier) has said much of what I wanted to say concerning the great need in Etobicoke for this legislation. I want to address my concerns to the member for Oakville. Nothing under the current legislation would prevent any developer from developing a seniors' condominium. Seniors' condominiums are being developed, as are resorts of various kinds and housing developments, and they are not in any way affected by this legislation.

If members look at the court decision of York Condominium 216 versus Borsodi, I suggest that in 1983 when that was taken, much of the thinking that has gone on in the interim in looking at human rights was not in the forefront. Were that to happen today, some other considerations might be looked at.

In the city of Etobicoke and elsewhere, a great number of rental apartment buildings are being developed as condominiums; whole buildings are being rented out. If the government allows developers the opportunity to build rental accommodations that are registered as condominiums, then it is telling any builder who wants to build an adults-only rental building that this is the way to do it.

While I have empathy with some of the arguments the member has made and with the fact that he is talking about only five per cent of present condominiums that are adults-only condominiums in their declaration, and perhaps a majority of those have seniors in them or at least people above the age of 55, my concern is that the amendment will open the floodgates to what amounts to rental accommodation in the guise of condominiums. Unless there is some way of getting around that problem, I see no way at present in which we can support that kind of amendment.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I want to add a word about this in support of what the member for Lakeshore has said and through her to communicate with the condominium owners who may be concerned about this legislation.

First, many of the condominium owners in Ontario who think they are living in adults-only buildings are not living in adults-only buildings. There is more than one recorded example of buildings that are advertised as adults-only buildings in which there is not and never has been the requisite bylaw and where at the end of the day the remaining units are sold to families with children to complete the condominiumization of the exercise. Many of the people out there who with the best faith in the world believe they are living in adults-only buildings are not in fact so living. It is estimated that 15 per cent of condominium owners in Ontario think they are in adults-only buildings, but only two per cent or fewer are.

17:10

It is possible a building that is not now an adults-only building could become one by the passage of the bylaw, but the reality is that it is highly unlikely because of the bylaw passage requirements. What we are doing is creating an exception for a very small class. Even under the Conservative proposal, we are not creating an exception for all those people who think they live in adults-only buildings, because they do not. To say we pass this for them is really to maintain one stage longer that charade of which they are in a real sense the victims.

The member for Lakeshore has made this point and I will not repeat it, but today we are saying there can be no discrimination in housing because the applicant has children. There is only one restriction on that, and that is if the landlord-owner shares a bathroom or kitchen facility with the person to whom the assignment or rental is to be made.

We are saying that when the member for Oakville rents his house, he cannot say it is an adults-only house. When he rents a row house, he cannot say it is adults-only. There will be no rental premises in Ontario to which this restriction will henceforth apply.

The only difference between rental accommodation and ownership accommodation is the matter of title. If title were taken in Ontario the way it is taken in England, normally by 99-year lease, there would be no problem at all. I respectfully submit to the member for Oakville that his efforts to protect the interests of this group would not protect them in the first place and are inconsistent with the thrust of the legislation in the second place.

There is another danger that is even more important. I have it from persons who study these things that if an exception is made for condominium owners, distinguishing them from tenants, an attack can be made on the adults-only section based on section 15 of the charter, which is designed to advance equality rights. Under section 15 of the charter, the Legislature of Ontario would then be discriminating between those who rent and those who buy under the Condominium Act, allowing one kind of title to one and another kind to another. That discrimination would have to be justified under section 1 of the charter, and there could be no basis for any distinction in a free and democratic society between a policy of allowing children in one kind of building and not in another.

Conscious of the interests of both groups, I ask the House to oppose the proposed amendment.

Mr. Harris: I am disappointed that members of the two opposition parties, as I call them, are not supportive of the amendment that has been put forward.

Mr. McClellan: As you used to call then.

Mr. Harris: I still do. I acknowledge that not everybody phrases it that way, but I still do.

An hon. member: We construe it as detracting from your leader's words.

Mr. Harris: I do not know why you would construe what I am saying as being contrary to anything my leader has said about the duration of this parliament. When I refer to the various political parties in Ontario, I consider there are two that are opposite to me. Come election time, that appears to be the case; so that is why I refer to them in that way.

As I say, I am disappointed the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party are not supporting this amendment. I would like to associate myself with the remarks made by the member for Oakville when he discussed the unique aspect of condominium ownership. It is a form of ownership in today's economy that, regrettably, is the only hope or opportunity for home ownership of many members of our society in Ontario. It affects a large number of people.

The member for Oakville referred to the unique nature of this form of home ownership in that it involves not only owning a particular unit but also a coming together and mutual sharing of many facilities that make up the condominium corporation. As well, many of those facilities were designed for adults-only accommodation.

If this goes through, I can see that there could be occasions when owners of premises could be pushed into facilities and expenses they neither anticipated nor found desirable when they bought and that they do not particularly want to have to make. I am talking about facilities to accommodate children that were not incorporated into the original design of the condominium home ownership agreement they entered into when they bought.

We are dealing with the rights of various people. Invariably, when we get into these situations, we are faced with a choice of taking away the rights of some to ensure the rights of others. We have to weigh carefully and balance the net effect or net good we are doing by opening the very few condominium corporations that are adults-only or are likely to be adults-only versus the number of people who are having difficulty finding accommodation.

In her remarks, the member for Lakeshore referred to the number of single parents -- and in most cases that means single women with children -- who have difficulty finding accommodation. I may be wrong, but it has been my experience that the type of accommodation that might be gained by renting somebody else's condominium is not usually in the price range in which the people she is referring to have difficulty in finding accommodation.

There may be a very small limitation of choice for some people who want to rent condominiums that are owned by others in an adults-only condominium setting, but I submit those people are probably looking at paying a considerable amount for the rent in those adults-only condominiums; they are not likely to be in the low end of the market. The options for those people in renting would be significantly higher than they are for those who seek affordable accommodation on low incomes.

We have to weigh what small negative there may be versus the rights of property ownership, home ownership, and the rights of those who have entered into an agreement and purchased a condominium on that basis.

17:20

The Attorney General's reference to the charter and to the possibility that if this amendment put forward by the member for Oakville were to carry it would open up the province or this bill to a charter challenge, I found to be a bunch of crap. I do not believe that. I do not share the Attorney General's opinion. I might add that if property rights were entrenched in the Constitution, as they should have been originally and as I hope one day they will be, that might take care of it. I do not know; I am not a learned member of the bar. But I do not find the Attorney General's argument compelling.

In my experience as a layman, I have found that most of the rulings on the charter have come out on the side of common sense as opposed to the side of some technicality, and I do not accept the Attorney General's argument in that sense.

I think the member for Oakville and I have balanced carefully the rights that will be infringed, with or without this amendment, and I tend to come down on the side that we are doing more damage, or infringing on the rights of more people unfairly, by not accepting the amendment for condominiums than we are by accepting the amendment for condominiums.

I encourage the Attorney General, who has not listened to a word I have said --

Hon. Mr. Scott: Yes. I heard it all.

Mr. Harris: Oh, he has.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Especially the bit about the charter, the load of crap.

Mr. Harris: If he has listened, he may want to reconsider his position, and we may have an unexpected reversal here in the Legislature. If he has listened, he will find my arguments do make a lot of sense, as they do to a lot of people.

In view of the fact that this amendment is not likely to carry, I would like to ask the Attorney General about the aspect of retroactivity. I have had conflicting views expressed to me about whether, by removing completely subsection 20(4) of the Human Rights Code without accepting the amendment put forward by the member for Oakville, it can be retroactive.

It strikes me that it must be retroactive, and the Attorney General is nodding. Perhaps he could explain to me the retroactivity part of it, and I might have a wee additional comment based on that response.

Hon. Mr. Scott: It is not retroactive in the technical sense. It means that any adults-only bylaws that exist, in those few units that have them, cannot be enforced in the future.

Mr. Harris: I understand what the Attorney General is saying. It is in fact retroactive.

Hon. Mr. Scott: No.

Mr. Harris: He is saying they cannot be enforced.

Hon. Mr. Scott: They can be enforced yesterday, but they cannot be enforced tomorrow.

Mr. Harris: Therefore, it is retroactively changing the rules of condominium ownership for people who bought a condominium last year, the year before or the year before that or who have bought under some terms of agreement. Now I am really concerned. I do not understand. Not only have I given him a view that I share about whose rights are being infringed more, on balance, by accepting this amendment, but he is also now telling me he is retroactively going to be changing the home ownership rules under which individuals bought these homes.

The Attorney General knows all about these challenges, but I am not certain that somebody who bought a home under certain rules and conditions a couple of years ago is not subject to some form of redress by a Legislature that turns around and says, "Too bad about what you thought you were buying when you bought your own home." Property rights are one of the most sacred rights we have in this country. He now is going to tell them, "You did not buy what you thought you bought, and you do not have the power to live in the type of environment where you want to live." If it is the case that it has the effect of negating an understanding people had, then I feel even stronger about the lack of acceptance of the amendment put forward by my colleague the member for Oakville.

If he is doing something I disagree with, but I give him the right to do it from here on in for new condominiums, he is violating the property rights of the people who have already purchased condominiums under an understanding he now is going to change.

Hon. Mr. Scott: On the last point, when the government of George Drew introduced the first act in 1944, it was retroactive legislation, as my friend the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) will agree. It simply said that as a result of the Drummond Wren case, any conveyances or agreements that prohibited sales to Jews would henceforth not be enforceable. I am sure that at that time Premier Drew had the same difficulty everybody subsequently has had in persuading members of his caucus to support what they perceived to be retroactive legislation. In that sense, it was not retroactive at all. It simply said that henceforth that kind of clause, agreement or provision would not be enforced by the courts, and that is what we are doing today.

Mr. Harris: I find it a little offensive that the Attorney General is treating property rights in the same vein as the example he gave this House. It is typical.

Hon. Mr. Scott: That was property rights.

Mr. Harris: He can argue semantics all he wants. In effect, it is retroactive. He tried to say it was not retroactive.

Hon. Mr. Scott: It is not retroactive.

Mr. Harris: It has the effect of being retroactive. He can play semantics if he wants, but in effect he is changing the rules of the game for condominium owners who I believe have some rights, some property rights and rights of home ownership, one of the rights I consider to be most sacred. I accept the rights he is trying to protect by rejecting this amendment. I think I have given reasoned arguments that the rights he is trying to protect are not causing significant problems and are not of the same weight as the problems he is causing by rejecting the property rights of condominium owners.

Mr. Gordon: I would like to comment on the amendment that has been put forward by the member for Oakville. The fact that this government is not willing to allow property owners to do what they believe is proper with their property in the case of condominiums is a good illustration of how far down the tube we have gone in taking away people's rights.

I keep hearing people talk about what a free country we have and how great it is to live in Canada. When I go to the Caruso Club in Sudbury and talk to many Italian Canadians at that Caruso Club, they are the first to tell me or any other visitor how good Canada has been to them and how much it means to them that they are able to own property, that they are able to have their own plot of land and that they are able to garden the way they want to garden or to make wine the way they want to make wine.

Hon. Mr. Scott: It is the kind of zoning.

Mr. Gordon: The facetious remark that just came from the Attorney General pretty well tells the tale. He said the problem probably lies with the kind of zoning that is involved with the point I am raising about the Italian Canadians.

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

17:30

Interjection.

Mr. Gordon: I notice the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) wants to get involved. He too has brought in laws that are very restrictive, but that is part and parcel of the whole tenor of this government. It wants to take away rights from people. That is what it is doing in this case. It is not allowing people to decide their own destiny, to determine what they want to do with their property. It wants to take away all the rights from property owners. That is what it is doing. It is a shame. It is the kind of thing that makes people want to tear up their citizenship papers.

Where is the government going with this sort of thing? It is taking away the rights of people to determine what they want to do with their lives. There is no reason people living in a condominium should not have the opportunity to decide together what they want to do in that condominium. It is establishing a law that says they have to take children no matter what.

I know people in Sudbury who are currently selling their homes and planning to move into a condominium development in the city. They are doing that now that they have raised their families. They have put aside many of the worries and problems you have when raising a family. They have done a good job of raising their families. The government is saying they cannot have a condominium corporation that says there cannot be children in that building. Why can they not have some peace and quiet in their later years? Why does this government insist upon taking away those rights? Whom does this government think it is protecting? This is reverse discrimination; that is what it is.

The member for Oakville has brought forward a very good amendment, and it is one we should be supporting in this House. I am very disappointed the government continues to go down the path of removing more and more rights from the people of Ontario. That is the whole bent of this government. We have seen it since the New Democratic Party and the Liberals joined together, and today is a very good example of a further step along that road.

Mr. Taylor: I would like to go on the record as supporting my colleagues in this matter. I have listened to the Attorney General and others. I appreciate the reference to the Drummond Wren case where, if I am not mistaken, the courts ruled it was contrary to public policy to discriminate in the fashion manifested in that case, through restrictive covenants and deeds. It was a codification of that public policy as enunciated by our courts that resulted in the Human Rights Code and the evolution of that code as we know it today. To equate that, as our House leader has said, with the application in a retroactive way to arrangements that were already made when the individual property owners purchased their units within that condominium is tantamount to retroactivity.

I am not talking about drawing a line and saying all those persons in the future who choose to purchase a condominium cannot restrict occupation in this fashion. We are saying that all those persons who have already made their arrangements, who have purchased and invested their moneys in a condominium building are now going to have those arrangements disturbed as a result of this legislation. That is what concerns our House leader and the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon), who has already spoken. I am concerned about another infringement on property rights, which are obviously not protected in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I want to go on record as asking the Attorney General to reconsider this amendment.

Mr. Shymko: I have some problems with the concept of private ownership. Condominiums developed as a concept some 20 years ago, when cost factors affecting the normal family home residence made it much cheaper to own a home in what had formerly been rental residential homes. Four walls without a backyard and the normal 1950s and 1960s concept of a private home became a condominium. It took a while for this concept to become entrenched, and today condominiums versus residential homes in an area are basically perceived as owner-occupied family homes.

The difference is a difference in cost. We know that in making a choice about buying a family home, a condominium private property is very often cheaper than a home with a piece of land, the traditional backyard, etc., and many families opt for a condominium residence for their home because of the cost factor.

I have a problem if I see a discriminatory law applying to 300 units, let us say, in one building that discriminates against families with children by means of a bylaw, as may be the case through this amendment. You would then have to allow a ghetto area of Mississauga or Sudbury with 300 residential homes to say that this area could, by a bylaw of the home owners' association of the area, discriminate against families with children. I think it could be challenged.

Once we pass this amendment, there is nothing to prevent 300 home owners in Mississauga who own properties that are not in a condominium building but are residential properties from organizing themselves and saying, "On the basis of this amendment, we will create a ghetto in Mississauga comprising the following 25 blocks or 15 blocks, which will, by right, discriminate against anyone with a family who wants to buy a home in that area." That is the problem I see with this amendment.

If that is true, there is no way I can support this amendment, if indeed it can apply in the area of ghettoized parts of a municipality. For that matter, a developer could say: "Here I have a development of 300 homes. All those who buy these homes can discriminate against children, because I know there is a market." He might well do that, according to this amendment. That troubles me; and there is no way, if that can be accomplished, I can support this amendment. Therefore, I will oppose it.

Mr. O'Connor: In answer to the last member's reasonable question, I point out that the statute that permits the current situation to pass bylaws is a statute of this Legislature. The Condominium Act permits owners of corporations to pass bylaws to govern their activities, within certain limits and restrictions, within their particular building. No such statute or act would permit the situation my friend has put to the House. Therefore, there is a distinction or a difference, which I suggest, since he is now aware of it, will permit him to vote in favour of the amendment as I put it.

17:40

Mr. Sterling: I feel constrained to speak on this issue because in my riding --

Mr. Rae: If you were constrained, you would not speak.

Mr. Sterling: Not constrained.

In my riding of Carleton-Grenville, in the village of Stittsville on the outskirts of Ottawa, the first adults-only condominium was put in place some 15 or 20 years ago. The Attorney General is telling this House that the people who went there and invested their life savings under the law at the time, which permitted them to be assured they would live in an adults-only community --

Hon. Mr. Scott: They now can have kids.

Mr. Sterling: The Attorney General can joke about it, but these people would like to know why he is laughing. These people invested their lifetime savings on the legal understanding that the resale of their units would be based on the original rules set by that condominium corporation. I do not understand why this Legislature should make this law in effect retroactive to affect their type of tenure of their units.

In this case, in the Amberwood subdivision, the people acted in good faith under the laws of Ontario. To come back at them by introducing an amendment to Bill 7 -- I am sure none of them is aware of the effect of this. I do not think the members of the Legislature were aware of it until the member for Oakville brought it to the attention of the legislators.

I stand firmly opposed to this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to take into consideration what is happening. If it is the wish of the members of the Legislature to have this rule as a condition in new condominiums, that is a different game. To go back and change the law retroactively is not acceptable in any circumstances.

Mr. Taylor: It is confiscation of the peace and quiet of senior citizens in this province when the government disturbs an arrangement they have made to live in a complex of people of similar age. What does the government want to do this for?

Have they no respect for ownership? They do not seem to care about private property, contracts that have been entered into or bylaws that are in place. What do they want to disturb this for? Have they no respect for arrangements that have been made, or as my colleague has said, for the hard-earned life savings that have been put out so someone can enjoy the peace and quiet of his senior years in a complex where he is undisturbed?

What are they doing this for? Why do they want further to disturb and confiscate the rights of people to the utilization of their private property?

Mr. Philip: What do you have against children?

Mr. Taylor: Shame on the member. Listen to him. He will be old one day and will want some peace and quiet. When the dog dies and the children have grown up and left home, he will enjoy the grandchildren, but not for ever. He too will be glad when they leave after a few days or a few hours.

Why do they not leave people with a little more freedom to live the lifestyle they want to live? What are they doing this for? What kind of government do we have?

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. O'Connor's amendment to subsection 18(13) will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Mr. Chairman: I believe the next amendment is Mr. Shymko's amendment to subsection 18(17).

Mr. Shymko: I move that section 18 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsections:

"(17) Subsections 18(1), 18(2), 18(3), 18(4) and 18(5) are hereby referred forthwith, after the bill receives royal assent of these subsections, to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly.

"(18)" --

Mr. Harris: Have we finished all the other sections of the bill? Is this it?

Mr. Chairman: Is this a point of order?

Mr. Harris: Yes, Mr. Chairman. On a point of order: I thought we had agreed we would deal with this amendment at the end of the bill.

Mr. Chairman: The member is moving it. It is not an appropriate point of order. He is in the middle of moving an amendment.

Mr. Harris: I would ask him to unmove it and sit down.

Mr. McClellan: We will have a major problem if we are not rational. Let me suggest we stand this section down until we have completed all other sections of the bill. Then the member can move his amendment to subsection 18(7) and two other amendments he has, which will conclude the debate in committee of the whole House.

Mr. Shymko: Mr. Chairman, I was surprised that you called me for an amendment. I thought there was a change from the original agreement that it would be done at the end. If that is the agreement, I would appreciate doing it at the end.

Mr. Chairman: That is the next amendment in order in front of the chair.

Mr. Shymko: Mr. Chairman, I would like some guidance as to whether I can proceed with this or wait until later.

I ask that this section be stood down until we reach section 70 of the bill, where there will be amendments that will impact on an amendment that has to be introduced to section 18; they are related.

Mr. Chairman: Fine. Thank you.

Section 18 stood down.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The next section that requires an amendment is section 23.

Mr. Chairman: No. The next amendment in front of me, unless there is some prior understanding, is from Ms. Gigantes, an addition of subsection 5a to section 18.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: You are the only one who has it, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: I can only go by what is in writing in front of me. A new subsection 5a is being added to section 18. Has the amendment been withdrawn?

Ms. Gigantes: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Forgive me.

17:50

Mr. Chairman: This whole procedure is somewhat irregular, in that we started on section 18 of the bill by unanimous consent. It would be normal to go back to section 1 and start on through. Is that what the committee prefers, the usual route?

Ms. Gigantes: I suggest that while we are in an amending mood, we should deal with amendments. The sections leading up to section 18 are unlikely to produce any amendments; so it would be a simple matter to go back once we had proceeded through the bill in the order we are now going and deal with sections 1 through 18.

Mr. Chairman: Is it agreed by the committee that we go through all the amendments and then go back to section 1 and go through them?

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: The next piece of paper I have in front of me refers to section 23.

On section 23:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Scott moves that section 23 be amended by adding thereto the following subsections:

"(2a) Clause 31(b) of the said act is amended by adding at the end thereof `and affirmations.'

"(2b) Clause 44(8)(b) of the said act is amended by adding at the end thereof `and affirmations.'

"(3a) Subsection 102(8) of the said act is amended by inserting after `swear' in the fifth line `(or solemnly affirm)' and by adding at the end thereof `(omit this phrase in an affirmative).'

"(3b) Clause 103(2)(b) of the said act is amended by adding at the end thereof `and affirmations.'"

Hon. Mr. Scott: This is just to pick up an affirmation provision in the Labour Relations Act that was not covered by the committee.

Motion agreed to.

Section 23, as amended, agreed to.

On section 33:

Mr. Chairman: Ms. Gigantes moves that subclause 1(j)(iii) of the Mental Health Act, as set out in subsection 33(1) of the bill as reprinted by the Attorney General, be struck out.

Ms. Gigantes: The section I am dealing with in this amendment is the section that sets out the definition of the nearest relative who is given authority to give consent for treatment for a psychiatric patient who cannot give consent because he or she is not deemed competent.

What we have in subsection 33(1) as it sits before us now in the committee is a listing of those people who can be called "nearest relative" and who are therefore given authority to consent to treatment. If one looks down the line of those people on page 17 of the bill as it is printed, number three in rank in terms of a person who may give consent to treatment is the estranged spouse of the patient.

We have been assured by the Ministry of Health and the Attorney General that the whole question of who shall give consent for treatment and how it shall be given will be reviewed when we have the final report of the guardianship committee. However, in the meantime, I believe there is unanimous feeling in this Legislature that one of the people who should not be called upon to give consent is the estranged spouse.

We can all understand intuitively that if people have decided to live separate and apart, having been married or having lived in a spousal relationship, one of the reasons a psychiatric patient may be in need of psychiatric treatment is the relationship with the estranged spouse; that that spouse should be called upon as the person who has authority to give consent to treatment, I think, strikes people in 1986 in Ontario and people in this Legislature as being insupportable. For that reason, I am proposing that we remove the estranged spouse as the consent-giver.

Hon. Mr. Elston: We agree with the rationale provided by the honourable member and agree to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: You are not speaking from your seat. Is there unanimous consent for the Minister of Health to speak from a seat other than his own?

Agreed to.

Mr. O'Connor: On behalf of our party, I confirm that we agree with the rationale put forward by the member and will be voting in favour of this amendment.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Elston moves that section 33 of the bill be amended,

(a) in subsection 33(26) by adding at the commencement of subsection 30(1) of the Mental Health Act, as set out in subsection 33(26) of the bill, "There shall be a review board and"; and

(b) by striking out "a" in each instance where it occurs immediately before "review board" in each section or subsection of the Mental Health Act that is enacted or amended by section 33 of the bill and inserting in lieu thereof "the."

Hon. Mr. Elston: This is merely to make it explicitly known in the act that a review board shall continue to exist. It was merely an oversight as the amendments were being drafted. I believe there is unanimous support.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Elston moves that subsections 30(1) and (4) of the Mental Health Act, as set out in subsection 33(26) of the bill be amended,

(a) in subsection 30(1), by striking out "and shall designate a person to be the co-ordinator of the review board" in the fourth and fifth lines; and

(b) in subsection 30(4), by striking out "co-ordinator of the review board" in the first line and inserting in lieu thereof "Lieutenant Governor in Council."

Hon. Mr. Elston: We found that the role of co-ordinator was causing some concern with the review boards. We had advice from the chairmen of those review boards around the province. They have asked us to delete the role of co-ordinator. I have discussed this with the critics opposite, and I believe we have consent for this measure as well.

Motion agreed to.

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

18:00

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Before you adjourn the House or whatever you are about to do, Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate that we will continue with this bill as the first order tomorrow, God willing.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Pursuant to provisional standing order 30, the motion that this House do now adjourn is deemed to have been made.

TRANSMISSION LINE

The Acting Speaker: The member for Carleton-Grenville has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Energy (Mr. Kerrio). The member has up to five minutes to debate the matter and the minister may reply for up to five minutes.

Mr. Sterling: I want to try to explain to the minister this evening the situation in relation to the Bridlewood community in the city of Kanata with respect to the proposed Ontario Hydro tower that will cut through the centre of that community.

I want to congratulate Judy Hunter, Lynn Barrett and the community for the interest they have taken in this issue. I hope the minister will answer the 1,600 letters that were written to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) on this matter. The council of the city of Kanata, led by Mayor Des Adams, has been extremely supportive of this group.

Let us make it clear exactly what Ontario Hydro is going to do. Hydro is going to replace an 80-foot tower with twin towers of 160 feet. Mr. Speaker, if you look at this diagram, you will see this is the existing tower in the corridor; it is going to be replaced by two towers twice as high as the existing tower.

The people of the community of Bridlewood are most upset that this will be running right down the gut of their community.

Mr. Mancini: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: There are historical precedents in the House for demonstrations such as the honourable member is putting on at present to be deemed out of order. I ask that you rule on the matter.

The Acting Speaker: I believe the member for Essex South is right. Do not use the display any more.

Mr. Sterling: I would like the precedent -- I hope this is not running into my time; it should not run into my time -- so I can explain my situation.

Mr. Mancini: The honourable member is out of order.

Mr. Sterling: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker: I want either the standing order or the precedent before me before you make that ruling. Otherwise, to my knowledge, there is nothing that prevents me from showing a chart to illustrate a point.

I am finished with that chart to show the impact of this line.

I am trying to make the minister understand the situation, and it is too bad the Liberal member from western Ontario does not empathize with the people of Kanata when I try to show this problem.

Mr. Mancini: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The member is imputing motive. He is saying I do not care about the problems in eastern Ontario. That is not true. All I did was rise and point out that the member was out of order. I wish the member to withdraw that comment.

Mr. Sterling: I will not withdraw that comment, Mr. Speaker. I have not imputed any motives.

Mr. Mancini: We have rules. I ask for your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Sterling: I would ask for additional time, because the member for Essex South keeps interrupting. He does not understand the importance of this issue.

The Acting Speaker: My ruling is that you are not imputing motives. I will give you an extra minute to debate. Continue.

Mr. Sterling: Thank you very much. The people of Bridlewood are most concerned that they have not had a fair hearing with regard to the location of the hydro corridor through their community.

On January 22, 1985, the joint board had a hearing in Bridlewood. At that time, Ontario Hydro assured the community that the route through their community was the sixth or seventh choice of Ontario Hydro.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: One of three.

Mr. Sterling: The Minister of Energy is not aware that there were seven proposals for the route coming through eastern Ontario. There were six routes to the south. I submit to the minister the fact that the proposal to run through the city of Kanata and the community of Bridlewood became a reality only after the township of Goulbourn put forward an alternative proposal, which was taken seriously only after the hearings had already taken place in the Bridlewood community.

In the one case there were a number of proposals, and Ontario Hydro went into that community and said: "Hey, this is not really in the cards. You do not really need to worry, because it is going to go to the south of the built-up community." Then, about three weeks later, in comes another party and says, "Hey, we can avoid a problem over here if we divert up around and go through Bridlewood." Therefore, the community was not alerted to the fact that this route was under serious consideration.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Thank you very much. That was an interesting presentation.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, as you know, Ontario Hydro's proposal for the expansion of its transmission system --

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The member for Carleton-Grenville had a couple of seconds on the clock, and then the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) interjected, cut him off, lost the last little bit of his time and acted as if he were the Speaker. They had not even had time for the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine) to run in behind him so they could be seen on the cameras. He interjected and took some time away from the member. I do not know whether that is a point, but it strikes me that --

The Acting Speaker: I believe this is not a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Then, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to do the same as you did for the other members, so you do not show any partiality, and add that same time to my time.

The Acting Speaker: What are you asking me now? My ruling before was that I gave him an extra minute. The situation was totally different. Please continue.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, as you know, Ontario Hydro's proposal for the expansion of its transmission system in eastern Ontario was considered under a process that involved the preparation of an environmental assessment and a full public hearing before a joint board established under the Consolidated Hearings Act.

The environmental assessment that was prepared by Ontario Hydro identified a number of alternative routes, one of which followed an existing right of way through the Bridlewood community. The public hearing was held between January 1985 and July 1985 and included sessions held in Bridlewood to hear directly the concerns of the residents in that community.

Residents of Bridlewood say the route through their community was not rigorously opposed by them because they felt that, as Ontario Hydro had recommended an alternative route, the Bridlewood route would not be considered by the joint board. I would like to make it quite clear that all these routes, including the route through the Bridlewood community, were on the table for consideration during the public hearing.

The joint board decided the new line should follow the existing right of way through Bridlewood because this route eliminates the need for new severances, avoids heavy angle towers, leaves undeveloped land untouched, requires no national capital land acquisition and avoids existing residences.

The joint board approval was conditional upon an agreement between Ontario Hydro and the city of Kanata on appropriate mitigation measures. I understand the city of Kanata is to consider Ontario Hydro's mitigation proposals at a meeting to be held on December 11. If the parties fail to come to an agreement, they will meet with the joint board on December 15.

As the members know, the public review period following the joint board's decision resulted in a number of appeals to the Lieutenant Governor in Council. These included appeals by the city of Kanata and the Kanata Citizens' Task Force and raised a number of matters, including the use of a 230-kilovolt right of way for a 500-kilovolt double-circuit line and the possible health effects of high-voltage transmission.

Cabinet carefully considered those appeals but decided that the joint board's decision should be approved and that Ontario Hydro should proceed with its design and construction activities. It is this government's firm belief that the public participation process that has been set in place is the best means for making decisions of this kind.

I turn briefly to the possible health effects of high-voltage transmission. The joint board in making its decision and cabinet in consideration of the petition both considered evidence relating to the possible health effects of high-voltage transmission. I understand current research recognizes that while there are some effects, there is much disagreement on which effects are significant and whether results can be extrapolated from laboratory animals to humans. To date, no significant public health effects caused by high-voltage transmission have been identified.

I appreciate the concerns that have been expressed about the possible health effects of high-voltage transmission, and I have asked my officials to keep a close watch on developments. In the meantime, Ontario Hydro, in its efforts to address the concern, will design and construct a line through Bridlewood in such a way that field strengths will be below guidelines at the edge of the right of way.

The government is satisfied that the health of the residents of Bridlewood will not be put to risk as a result of the line passing through their community. If that were a cause not to put that line through Bridlewood, we would have to tear down every transmission line in Ontario. The lights would go off in this building and everywhere else across this province. It is very unlikely that is going to happen.

The House adjourned at 6:13 p.m.

9 décembre 1986