Journal des débats 1988-nov-16 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Mackenzie: Two years ago my colleague the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen), in response to widespread community demand, moved a private member’s bill to enable the citizens of Hamilton-Wentworth to freely elect their regional chairperson. My colleague and members of the NDP caucus continued to press the government of Ontario to adopt this more democratic approach to make the decision about who should be the chairperson, one made by all the people and not just a privileged few. The government got the message and brought forward its own bill about a year ago which established the right to an election.

The result of this bill was the first election of a regional chairperson for Hamilton-Wentworth this Monday past. Five well-known citizens of our region contested this position. Reg Whynott was the successful candidate and will take over the position held by the retiring Bill Sears.

Perseverance by the member for Hamilton West and others paid off. The election process worked. We hope the new chairman, Reg Whynott, will use his authority wisely and we wish him well in his new job.

CHEQUES FOR ONTARIO SCHOLARS

Mr McCague: I think all members of this House have been invited to attend the commencement exercises in their schools over the past month or so. In each case, the cheques from the government were not available for the students. It is my understanding that the government has known for four months who the Ontario scholars were. I was interested to note that the member for Simcoe Centre (Mr Owen) had to make apologies of the government for not having the cheques available at that particular time.

Mr Reycraft: They’re in the mail.

Mr McCague: No, they are not in the mail, because they are not there yet. If my friend wants to take the blame, he should speak up again.

However, I was able to point out to the people in my riding that prior to 1985 the cheques were always there on time, and that was probably the best joke anybody could tell at that particular time.

Mr. Black: That’s because all the money you were spending on education was on those cheques.

Mr. McCague: The member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay does not know what he is talking about. The same thing happened to my colleague the member for Simcoe Centre, as I have said. It is scandalous. They should be out in time. They had four months’ notice.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Cleary: Our government has heard many complaints from the opposition members who seem to spend their time searching for negative stories about our health care system. There should always be an element of self-help attached to any community service. A community which is spoon-fed becomes unproductive.

In my Cornwall area riding, the people are presently engaged in a self-help program with their hospitals. The Cornwall hospitals need a total of $24,818,000 for the building program. Our provincial government agreed to provide $16,418,000. The hospitals are giving $3.9 million. The city of Cornwall and the united counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry contributed $2.5 million. This left $2 million to be raised by the community.

Rather than cry about the need for additional monies, the people of Cornwall and area established a joint hospital fund, determining to make up the difference. They are doing this with good heart, having fun, and even welding a tighter community spirit in the process. To date, the Cornwall joint hospital fund has raised $1.8 million, and the balance of $200,000 will soon be obtained.

I am proud of the constituents of my riding. Instead of complaining about the $2-million difference, the people of Cornwall and area faced the challenge head-on and overcame it.

AIR QUALITY

Mr. Laughren: On June 7, I wrote the following letter to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley):

“Dear Mr. Minister:

“Several times every year when the weather is dry and the wind is blowing, Inco’s tailings are lifted by the wind and blown across the surrounding area. The blowing tailings are so thick that motorists must drive with their lights on. The tailings are blown into people’s homes and cars and, of course, onto the vegetation and into the local lakes and creeks.

“Inco’s response is always one of concern and an offer to pay for any damage caused by the tailings. There is, however, no way to assess the environmental damage nor to estimate what tourists think of Sudbury when they have to turn on their lights on an otherwise bright, sunny day.

“More than 10 years ago, Inco was given permission to expand their tailings area, and they agreed to control the problem of blowing tailings which they have not done.

“I can assure you that if the blowing of tailings occurred in southern Ontario as it did in Sudbury on June 5, you as the Minister of the Environment would be turning cartwheels in order to resolve the problem.

“Every single time I raise the matter with the Ministry of the Environment and with Inco, I am told that everything possible is being done. Hogwash!

“It is time that you, as minister, took an interest in this problem. I, for one, have had enough excuses from Inco and please, don’t play the role of Inco apologist again.”

That letter was written to the Minister of the Environment on June 7 of this year. To this date there still has not been a reply.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. Harris: I have a couple of paragraphs in a letter that I thought the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the cabinet would be interested in hearing.

“First, why is it that a woman on mother’s allowance has to pay through the nose to go to college? Example: Four years of college cost $14,000 in loan plus $8,000 interest, leaving me with a loan payment of $206 per month for the next 10 years. Once I manage to find employment I have this to look forward to. If, on the other hand, I was the daughter of someone on mother’s allowance, I would have virtually little to repay in the way of a loan. Why this discrimination? We are both in the same financial situation. Can you explain this to me?”

She goes on in another paragraph: “Secondly, why are all the government programs geared to the young? Do you not realize this only encourages them to drop out of school. What do you have for someone like myself? I am 37. Absolutely nothing!”

She goes on in another paragraph: “Upset, frustrated? Most definitely. If the government would be more sympathetic to the single parents there would not be so many of us requiring assistance financially or up to our necks in debts because we are only trying to better ourselves and get on with our lives at a decent standard of living.

“I would appreciate hearing from you on these issues. It might not seem of great importance to you, but it is to a larger number of people than you are aware of.”

This is a letter from Linda Remmerswaal in North Bay. I will be sending this letter to the Premier and to those ministers responsible and suggesting to them that there is a lot of truth in what this young lady says.

1340

ARTURO VIOLA

Mr. Dietsch: I would like to take this opportunity to bring to the attention of this House the recent recognition of an outstanding individual within my riding.

On November 11, Arturo Viola received the Citizen of the Year award from the Niagara-on-the-Lake Chamber of Commerce for his tireless contributions to the community.

Mr. Viola, the director of laboratories for the Niagara-on-the-Lake General Hospital, became a Canadian citizen in 1973 and has resided in the Niagara area for 17 years. During this time, Art has had extensive involvement in the Niagara Lions Club, serving as both the district and zone chairman, as well as receiving the president’s and secretary’s attendance award.

Art has been equally involved with other community organizations and causes, such as fund-raising for the diabetes awareness program, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario and the Jeremy Remple Night.

His overwhelming commitment can also be seen in the areas of work surrounding the Jocelyn Muir Ontario Lake Swimathon for Multiple Sclerosis, the Olympic torch relay and his active involvement in minor sports, church programs and the Filipino Association of Niagara.

I ask that each member of this House join with me in the warmest congratulations to this outstanding citizen, who has dedicated much of his time and knowledge to make Niagara a better place in which to live in this province of Ontario.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

ANNUAL REPORT, ONTARIO ADVISORY COUNCIL ON SENIOR CITIZENS

Hon. Mrs. Wilson: Today I am tabling the 14th annual report of the Ontario Advisory Council on Senior Citizens.

The advisory council comprises 16 citizens from across the province. Its role is to advise the government of Ontario, through my office, on matters concerning the wellbeing of seniors in our province.

To that end, during the 1987-88 fiscal year, the council met with various ministries on issues such as the legislative review of consumer legislation and the Ontario Building Code. In addition, at a two-day public consultation meeting in Windsor, the council discussed a wide range of issues, including health, social services and transportation.

During the coming year, the council will be examining attitudes towards ageing in Ontario’s multicultural environment in order to identify those issues that must be addressed if all our senior citizens, whatever their heritage, are to live full and rewarding lives.

I want to thank the council for sharing its valuable ideas with me. I want to express my personal thanks to the council members and staff, and I commend this annual report to all members of the House.

In closing, I would like the members to welcome Ivy St. Lawrence, chairman of the Ontario Advisory Council on Senior Citizens, who is with us in the gallery today. Since her appointment in March 1983, Ivy St. Lawrence has been a tireless advocate for Ontario’s seniors. On behalf of all members of this Legislature, I thank her for her efforts and her counsel.

RESPONSES

ANNUAL REPORT, ONTARIO ADVISORY COUNCIL ON SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr. Reville: On behalf of the New Democratic Party, I would like to extend our thanks to Ivy St. Lawrence, whom I know as a tireless worker at the city level as well as at the provincial level. There is no question that her advice and her energy are very valuable and much prized by all of us.

I cannot imagine the delight with which the council discussed the Ontario Building Code. I mean, it must have been a really interesting exercise for seniors in the province to discuss the building code. I cannot imagine a more arcane set of regulations to be debated.

I notice in the report that the advisory council did get into some very important issues that are important to seniors and to this party. There is a whole section on the financial affairs of seniors, which deals with such critical issues as tax reform, survivor benefits under the Canada pension plan, financial planning, telephone services, the Cemeteries Act and advocacy.

There is nothing in here that I can see immediately about pensions, and I think seniors across this province have spoken out very clearly about the pressing need for advancements in the policy and planning around people’s pensions. I think the government should be ashamed of itself that it has not moved forward with more alacrity in that area.

That said, we welcome again the annual report of the seniors’ advisory council. Our party is committed to working towards the day when seniors are not required to live in poverty in a province of such wealth as this.

Mr. Cousens: We are delighted that Ivy St. Lawrence continues to make this thing work and continues to draw out good advice so that the ministry at least has some guidance on matters.

I am glad that the government is continuing the activity of having a senior citizens’ portfolio, which the Honourable Frank Miller started and which this government was able to inaugurate. There was recognition then, and no one has any hold on sincerity. In fact, every one of us in this House had better realize that if we live long enough we will be seniors, except for maybe the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) and a few others who are already there.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am not.

Mr. Cousens: He is a senior member of the House.

It is rather startling, just on one little point, that this becomes a major announcement in the Legislature that the government is continuing to do something on seniors. I would have taken this for granted. We have the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs (Mrs. Wilson) working day and night for seniors, and yet we have to come along and have another presentation in the House.

This is probably one of the reasons that the Legislature is going to have to sit extra weeks in the year, because we end up having reports and members of the opposition have to comment on them. We would be far better to get dealing with some --

Mr. Adams: Sit down; you don’t have to comment.

Mr. Cousens: Oh no, I am going to comment because I want to go on record, along with them, saying that I believe in seniors too, that I want to do everything I can for seniors, that our party believes in seniors and that we ourselves are committed to make sure action comes out of this.

It is one thing to have all this advice from the Ontario advisory council; it is another thing to start implementing some of the programs that the advisory council has been asking for in the last several years. It is time we started to do more for seniors and not just talk about seniors, and that is the emphasis I want to make.

The minister has the advice. Let’s stop having more advice and more advice; let’s come along and get those other ministries that she has to work with to listen to her. I think she is doing a super job in very many ways, except it is, “Oh, sure I will;” but where is the Ministry of Community and Social Services, where is the Ministry of Health and where is the Ministry of Transportation when it comes to the minister’s implementing things for seniors? They are not giving her the co-operation she needs.

I think her ministry needs more power and more clout and more authority and the Treasurer should be giving that to her.

Let’s just get on with it. We have had enough advice. It is time for action.

Mrs. Cunningham: I too would like to make some comments on the annual report of the Ontario Advisory Council on Senior Citizens. I commend the minister on the report and the sharing of information with her, because it is very timely that I met with the Multicultural Work Group on Social Assistance this morning. They have a number of recommendations that do affect our senior citizens.

I am very glad that during the coming year, the council will be examining attitudes towards ageing in Ontario’s multicultural environment. Our party is most interested in meeting their concerns and dealing with their recommendations.

I would also like to take the opportunity to speak to pages 18 and 19 of the report, specifically on the integrated homemaker program. I am happy that is a priority of the council. There are many recommendations that we should be looking at and we will be waiting to hear from the government on that particular topic.

The other issue for seniors is the dental care issue. We are waiting again to hear from the government on its election promises with regard to dental care and hearing-related issues.

Pages 18 and 19 of the report are priorities for ourselves. We urge the minister to make them priorities for herself as she looks at the needs of senior citizens in Ontario in the next few months.

1350

ORAL QUESTIONS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Has the minister read the letters sent to employees of Libbey Owens Ford in Lindsay, which read as follows:

“After completing detailed medical examinations required by Ministry of Labour regulations, Dr. Brown and Dr. Doak have determined that you are medically unfit for work in isocyanates exposure as defined by those regulations.

“Based on these medical findings, your employment with Libbey Owens Ford Co. will be terminated, effective immediately. Your pay will continue through November 11 … at your regular hourly rate for 40 hours per week. Your medical benefits will be continued through the end of November. This will give you further opportunity to find alternative employment, and I wish you well in this endeavour.”

It is signed by the plant manager. Does the minister accept this almost unbelievable action in the year of our Lord 1988?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I want simply to tell my friend the member for Hamilton East that I had not read that particular letter, but I certainly am aware of the circumstances at Libbey Owens Ford.

The member for Hamilton East is referring to a situation where a number of employees at the Libbey Owens Ford glass facility in Lindsay have developed a sensitivity to isocyanates, and as a result of that sensitivity and a determination that they ought not to work any further in an environment where that sensitivity might be enhanced, the employer has terminated them.

I really question whether those terminations were appropriate. I note in passing that in Bill 162, which is now under second reading debate in this House, where workers who have developed this sort of industrial disease have become ready to go back to work, there is a requirement under a provision of that bill that the employer rehire those injured workers.

Mr. Mackenzie: I find the minister’s response not dealing specifically with the problem and unbelievable. This company is blatantly saying, “After we make you sick for life, we fire you with no further responsibility on our part.” Workers are clearly being asked to make a choice between their jobs and their health, a direct violation, I think, of section 24 of the act.

If ever there was a justified call for government action, this is it. What is the minister going to do in this case?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I just want to make it clear to my friend from Hamilton East that we have had inspectors from the health services and safety branch of the ministry and other representatives from the industrial health and safety branch at this facility for quite some time.

The reason, as explained to our officials, that these employees have been terminated is that it appears at this point -- and I emphasize, at this point -- that there is no place in that facility which would not heighten the sensitivity of these workers to isocyanates. Isocyanates are very volatile substances and it has been deemed on the company’s part that further potential exposure would do further damage to the health of these workers.

I will tell the member --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The other day you said the plant was clean.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: If the member for Scarborough West will just stop shouting for a moment, I will tell the member for Hamilton East that the question as to whether these terminations represent a reprisal for workers having raised occupational health and safety issues remains outstanding. The question of reprisals will be determined either by way of a grievance under the collective agreement, because this plant is organized and the workers are represented, or by way of an action before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

I am not sure what the member for Hamilton East is suggesting -- that somehow the Minister of Labour intervene?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Final supplementary.

Mr. Mackenzie: I really am trying to keep my cool with the minister and I cannot believe what I am hearing. Is he aware that workers working there in that plant to this day who have been notified by their own doctors that they may be sensitized are afraid to be reported to the company, because they would lose a needed job? Is he also aware that medical examinations at this plant this past summer found 23 employees who were partially or likely sensitized and 132 more who probably should not be working in that facility? It begs just exactly what the inspectors are doing. If the minister does not have an immediate response to what is going on in that plant and this particular situation, then he has clearly turned his back on workers in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I think it is important to let my friend the member for Hamilton East know that our inspectors are there to ensure that in no place in that facility are isocyanates present beyond the values established by regulation recently passed by this government under authority of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

I want to tell him as well that the Workers’ Compensation Board has made it a priority matter to determine whether claims are appropriate in these circumstances, and that determination will be made in the very near future.

I just want to end by saying that these issues and appropriate compensation for these workers under Bill 162, our reforms to the Workers’ Compensation Board, would provide immediate and full compensation to these workers for all the time they would be off work. I encourage him to think about that as we continue debate on Bill 162 in this House.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question for the gatekeeper of lists in Ontario, the Minister of Community and Social Services, who said yesterday, in response to my leader: “The honourable member is correct when he says there are waiting lists for day care, but he would be equally correct if he said there are waiting lists for services to the elderly, waiting lists for services to the disabled and waiting lists with respect to family violence. There are waiting lists in all of the services we offer.”

We concur with that statement the minister made, and I would like to just run through briefly and ask for the minister’s response to some of the waiting lists that exist in his ministry. Is the minister aware that there are 2,500 people waiting right now for admission to his homes for the aged, with a waiting period of up to 12 months; that there are right now 98 people on the waiting list for Ontario March of Dimes, and they closed off that waiting list because the people are waiting up to three years for service for attendant care? Is the minister aware that in Sudbury there are 168 qualified referrals for vocational rehabilitation, with a waiting list of nearly seven and a half months; in services for family violence, that in Ontario there are two people turned away for every one --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the member take his seat? There seemed to be quite a number of questions there.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member is correct that there are the kinds of waiting lists he is talking about. I said that yesterday. I said it in the context of indicating that the total resources available to my ministry and to all ministries of government are limited. It is our responsibility to allocate those resources across the full range of programs we have. We cannot concentrate all of our resources on any one program. I do not see any contradiction there.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: It is the responsibility of the Minister of Community and Social Services to serve the most vulnerable people in this province, and that is what these programs are supposed to do. How can the minister possibly say he is doing his job and his ministry is doing its job when in fact, in many of these services, there are more people on waiting lists than he is even serving? What is he prepared to do to provide these services, or is he just going to throw his hands up in the air, as the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) did a couple of minutes ago, and say there is nothing he can do at all?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I am not suggesting there is nothing we could do at all. I have to challenge the member’s statement that there are more people on waiting lists than are being served. I just do not think that is valid.

The other thing I would draw to the member’s attention is that in every one of those areas I mentioned yesterday and he mentioned today, there have been very significant rates of growth. There have been significant rates of growth in terms of extra beds in homes for the aged. There have been significant rates of growth in home support programs for the elderly and for the disabled. There have been significant rates of growth in additional programs for vocational rehabilitation. There have been significant rates of growth in community programs for the developmentally handicapped. There have been significant rates of growth in our children’s mental health centres. There have been significant rates of growth in our family violence programs. There have been significant rates --

1400

Mr. R. F. Johnston: How many beds?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: We have gone from $7 million to $26 million in family violence alone.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We will just wait once again; if you will allow the member for Windsor-Riverside may ask a supplementary.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I do not know how the minister can defend the waiting lists that he has with these very vulnerable people. I would like to ask him specifically, on services to people who are from violent families, how can he possibly say he is doing a decent job in that area when, in fact, two people are being turned away across the province for every one who is served? In Metropolitan Toronto the statistic is that for every one request, nine are turned away.

The minister will understand that there have not been new beds put in place. A lot of money has been spent on advertising and promotion, but nothing in terms of actual extra services to the people of this province. I think it would be a fair accusation to say that the minister is a traitor to the people he is supposed to be serving.

Hon. Mr. Scott: You’re the Simon Reisman.

Mr. Pouliot: Come on, there are only five days to go.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The member is wrong with respect to the growth in services in family violence. In 1985, when we took over, the total budget for family violence was $6.9 million. It is now $26.2 million. The total budget for transition houses has gone from $5.9 million to $17.2 million. We have introduced for the first time a community counselling preventive program at a cost of $3 million, a child support service workers’ program at a cost of $2.3 million, an emergency transportation program at a cost of $540,000, a crisis telephone program at a cost of $424,000. None of those programs were there before. All the advocacy groups for family violence said that that is precisely what we should be doing, and we have done it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would ask all members to show a little respect. New question, the member for Sarnia.

[Applause]

PAY EQUITY IN HOSPITALS

Mr. Brandt: Let the record show that there was tremendous applause from the Liberal benches and overwhelming applause from the Conservative benches as well, Mr. Speaker. I want to address my question to the Minister of Health.

Hon. Mr. Scott: You’re the Simon Reisman of the NDP.

The Minister of Health will be aware that, approximately a year from now, there will be a requirement in all hospitals in Ontario to implement the pay equity laws of this province, which were in fact put in place by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) some two years ago through the positions that he put before the justice committee. At the time of those presentations, an assistant to the Attorney General indicated that the cost of those programs would in fact have to be recognized in transfer grants from the province to the hospitals in order to make up that funding deficit. Over a period of four to five years, the cost of that program, we estimate, will be in the range of $115 million.

Is it the minister’s intention to transfer that money to the hospitals in order that they can implement the necessary pay equity programs, programs that we feel the nurses are justified in receiving? Is that her intention?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I am pleased to have a question from the leader of the third party on pay equity, because in fact one of the great accomplishments of this government, I think, has been to enact one of the most proactive pieces of legislation in North America.

There are many challenges for us as we move forward with this landmark legislation. We are working closely with many sectors to assist them. We have established the Pay Equity Commission, and I am confident that we will be successful in seeing this legislation implemented as it was intended to be.

[Applause]

Mr. Brandt: It was the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) who applauded that absolutely ridiculous answer. The question was very specific. There is no one in this House who takes exception to the introduction of pay equity in this province, but when the minister talks about its being proactive legislation, she should also talk about the fact that her government is not at this time making a commitment to fund her proactive program. In the years 1989 and 1990, the hospital administrators of this province are going to have to make a decision on whether or not she is, in fact, going to transfer those funds or whether they are going to have to cut back programs.

That is the answer the people of Ontario want. That is the answer I want. Answer me directly for a change, instead of fluffing it off.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: There are many, many issues facing Ontario today. To have the leader of the third party get himself so exercised in the theatrics of question period over what ifs, what might be at some point in the future, suggests to me that they are very short on questions.

Mr. Brandt: That is the second time she has been unable to answer the question. I will give her a third opportunity and I will repeat my first question.

Over a four- to five-year period, the costs to hospitals are $115 million. She has had two years to plan what she is going to do with this program. I can tell members right now what this minister is going to say in another year from now, when the program has to be introduced. She is going to accuse the hospitals of bad planning and bad management and expect them, somewhere in their budgets, to absorb the amount of money that pay equity will cost the various hospitals across this province.

I am asking a very simple, straightforward question: What is it she plans on doing with respect to the funding that is going to be required for a program that she calls proactive and that she has introduced? Is she going to pay for it?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I want to be very clear in my response to the leader of the third party when I tell him that we are committed, in principle, to addressing the issues of gender discrimination in pay practices. We know that the legislation requires that a study be done of the workforce. We know as well that the Ontario Hospital Association is looking at this issue right now and assisting its members in the implementation of this act, and! want to let him and the members of this House know that I believe that, in due course, we will work together to resolve any of the issues this legislation presents us in a manner that is fiscally responsible.

Mr. Brandt: The minister just does not know, does she? She frankly does not know the answer to the question; she has no idea.

My second question --

Mr. Speaker: To which minister?

Mr. Brandt: The same minister.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Brandt: I want to refer the minister to a speech today that was delivered by Dr. Harry Gasmann, the president of the Ontario Medical Association --

Hon. Mr. Scott: It’s Henry.

Mr. Brandt: Henry, sorry. This is a speech that was given today, in which Dr. Gasmann made some comments with respect to health service delivery in this province. He indicated:

“As for a rationing of care, it already exists, although it is imposed at random to those standing patiently in line.”

Would the minister agree with the president of the Ontario Medical Association that the rationing of health care already exists in Ontario?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: No.

1410

Mr. Brandt: The minister does not know the answer to that one either. She is having a great day over there. I thought these were relatively simple questions.

Dr. Gasmann stated quite clearly that we have rationed care in Ontario and that it is troubling to those of us who helped build up the health care system in Ontario. Dr. Gasmann went on to say, “The government believes the medical profession will make rationing work by giving priority to the most serious cases. We will to the best of our ability, but let’s stop calling it universal accessibility.”

Will the minister not agree that as a result of the decisions of her ministry, we no longer have universal accessibility to health care in this province?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: In fact, I fundamentally disagree with the leader of the third party. I tell him that our goal in Ontario and our vision for the future is that we should have, across this province, equity in access to the most effective quality health services, the very best we can afford and as close to home as possible.

We recognize that we have and should be justifiably proud of one of the best health systems in the world. I encourage him to work with us as we face the enormous challenges, but I tell him that everything we do in government and everything I propose will be to give us quality of care, quality of life, dignity for the individual and empowerment of the individual to make good choices about his own health.

Mr. Brandt: All of which sounds good and means little when you are in a waiting line trying to get into a hospital. Why is it that waiting lines in this province are increasing virtually daily? Why is it that for heart procedures, as an example, some three years ago we had a waiting period of about three months; we are now up beyond six months. Statistically, you are more likely to die waiting for an operation in this province than you are undergoing the surgery. That is an absolute fact when it comes to heart surgery. The minister knows it. That statistic came from the Ontario Medical Association.

Is that the kind of statistic the minister refers to as being an accessible health care system and a world-class health care system? How does the minister respond to those, of which I number myself, who have a concern that our health care system is deteriorating under her stewardship?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Technology is one of the enormous pressures bringing stresses on to the health care system. In fact, what technology is doing for us is allowing the practice of medicine to do many things it was unable to do in the past. When the member is referring specifically to cardiac care, he should know that, I believe just within the last few years, there are now 50 per cent more people being recommended for this surgery than there were three years ago. The indications for surgery were expanded.

We at the ministry have attempted to respond to this. We monitor, on an ongoing basis, what the needs are. We flowed some $21 million to expand the areas of critical care so that we could address that very issue. I would say that we recognize there are enormous challenges. We rely on the physicians in this province -- fine, decent, hardworking physicians -- to make sure the principle of our health care system is that those who require the most urgent care get it first. They do that using their very best medical judgement.

TACTICAL RESCUE UNITS

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question to the Solicitor General concerning the coroner’s inquest into the tragic killing of Mr. Bastien by the Ontario Provincial Police.

I would like to ask the minister if she is aware that the lawyer for the family had requested last week that the coroner should remove himself from the case because, he said, that throughout the five-week inquest the coroner has demonstrated bias against everyone except the OPP and the tactical rescue unit. Such irresponsible actions have exacerbated a public perception that the incident is not receiving a full and public hearing.

Is the minister prepared now to indicate today, and this would not affect the coroner’s inquest, that she will call a full public inquiry on this issue on completion of the coroner’s inquest, to deal with this major public tragedy and the bigger question of what the future is for TRUs in this province?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I am happy to repeat that at the end of this inquest we will indeed look at the future of the TRUs, at the appropriate use and the present use, and examine all the recommendations we look forward to receiving from the inquest team.

As to the accusations made by the attorney in this case, they are his opinions. I have been examining closely the evidence as it goes along. At this point, I have no reason to believe that these are substantiated. They are a matter of opinion of that particular lawyer who has his case to make as best he can.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: The minister can say that at the completion of the coroner’s inquest she and her government will review the future of TRUs in this province, but that is simply not good enough. The public has to be involved in this process and has a right to be involved in whether we want these kinds of tactical units even to exist in Ontario.

I am asking the minister today, will she call a public inquiry on the issue of the use of TRUs in this province? The public has a right to be involved to see that a tragedy like this never occurs again.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I remind the member that the inquest process is a process involving the public, just as a jury process is a process involving the public. To ignore this fact and not to await the presentation of that coroner’s inquest jury at the end of that inquest is in fact not to allow that particular method by which the public has input. Others will also be consulted. Certainly, we will be looking forward to the opinions of the opposition at that time. I look forward, with interest, to the opportunity of the coroner’s inquest and the public, through that jury system, to make their recommendations to us.

CASE OF CHARLES DUROCHER

Mr. Sterling: I have a question of the Attorney General. Today, we learned that a career bank robber, Charles Durocher, who is presently serving a 15-year sentence, was given a mere slap on the wrist for escaping custody when in Toronto to testify against like-minded criminals. The six-month sentence he received was the result of plea bargaining. Can the minister elaborate on this case and tell us what happened with respect to the plea bargaining and why was it even considered for this individual.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I will have to undertake to provide an answer to the honourable member, which I will do as soon as I have had an opportunity to review the facts of the case to which he refers.

Mr. Sterling: According to the accused, the Metropolitan Toronto sergeant responsible for his custody permitted him to escape, gave him money for the express purpose that Durocher should go to Montreal to find out what had happened to the stolen loot, more than $1 million, for which he was currently serving time -- to go and find this particular loot.

What I want to know is the real story behind this case. Is the fact that plea bargaining took place simply a ruse to hide the real facts of what happened during this particular case? Why was this individual allowed to go with the permission of the police when, in fact, that policeman probably did not have the discretion to do that? We want to know what was behind this particular case and I hope the minister will report that --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Several questions have been asked.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The honourable member wants the real story. I will undertake to let him have the real story.

1420

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Mr. Tatham: My question is to the Minister of Skills Development, regarding apprenticeships. I have had a request from a plumbing concern in Oxford. The man is a journeyman plumber and he has one apprentice. He wants to take on another apprentice, but evidently you have to have three more journeyman plumbers to do that. What is the rationale?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I will be happy to respond to the honourable member, who has raised his concern on numerous occasions with me. I think it would be appropriate to tell him that the apprenticeship and journeyman ratio has been a part of Ontario’s apprenticeship program since the introduction in 1928. The ratios were originally established to ensure there was quality of training and workplace safety. However, they do have an unintended effect of restricting the number of workers able to enter the trades as apprentices.

The provincial advisory committee on trades recommends to the ministry specific ratios for these trades, these committees have equal representation on both sides. We are looking into that matter, and concerns have been raised in regard to the ratios.

Mr. Tatham: I appreciate what the minister has said, but what is he going to do about it specifically?

Hon. Mr. Curling: As you know, Mr. Speaker, the pattern of questions and answers is that there is a limited time in which you allow me to respond, so at first, what I did was to set the history in place.

The ministry is currently tabling the issue of the ratio for discussions, and we hope the provincial advisory committee meeting will be able to see whether these barriers are really impeding access to more apprentices in the program.

Mr. Speaker: New question, the member for Lake Nipigon.

Mr. Pouliot: Yes, indeed, when is the minister going to start doing his job?

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Pouliot: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. The minister will fully realize that the need to four-lane the Trans-Canada Highway in our special part of Ontario, northwestern Ontario, is not only well documented but also universally supported. Over the past three years, the minister has had a pilgrimage from chambers of commerce and he has received petitions from motorists, from citizens who were concerned about safety, reminding him almost on a weekly basis that truck traffic has more than doubled.

Today, on the eve of the federal election, when promises between the two main participants on the federal scene are being thrown, like missiles, back and forth, they want to know, and they have asked me to be the courier on behalf of the fine people of the north, they want the minister to make a commitment regarding his exciting plans to at long last four-lane the Trans-Canada Highway, in stages, from Nipigon to the Shabaqua Corners in northwestern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I thought there were three main contestants up in the member’s -- are there only two? I guess that is why the member has been absent. He has been quite busy recently, has he?

I do appreciate the member’s continued interest in this question, which he has raised in this House before and I expect he appreciates our ongoing interest in eventually getting on with the project. He would be aware that substantial work is continuing in the area of Kenora with the Kenora bypass. We are doing a number of other projects over the total length of the Trans-Canada Highway, Highway 17-Highway 11. I know he has a particular interest in the 11-17 sector between Thunder Bay and Kenora.

I can tell the member that we too consider that a very high priority when we are able to get on with some work, but I would remind him his colleague the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) and others also have what they consider the number one priority for widening and rehabilitating the same highway. We are working very closely with all of those members and all of the delegations and other interested parties that the member has talked to and referred to with respect to getting on with the project, but he will be aware that a number of projects, in fact from Ottawa to Kenora, are under way now.

Mr. Pouliot: This could indeed be a feather in the minister’s cap, and more important perhaps, the people of the north would get the feeling that they are getting value for money. There is nothing like good roads. They are badly needed. They can relate to that. Right now, with the highest of respect, of course, they feel that they are getting ripped off, that they are not getting their share of development.

Very simply, my question is as follows: Will the minister make a commitment today and give us the assurance that he will four-lane the Trans-Canada Highway on a phased basis, on a step-by-step approach?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I think we have said in the past, and I would reiterate it again, that we are selectively and incrementally improving the capacity, widening and correcting particular safety concerns from one end of the highway in question to the other. The member will be aware of that. He will also be well aware of a number of highway and secondary road improvements throughout the north.

I am sure he will also be aware, since he has visited the north just recently, that indeed we have spoken to the federal minister, as we have always said we would, and we will continue that dialogue. As recently as September. for the first time perhaps, we now have an indication that at least the federal minister of the day might be willing to sit down with the province of Ontario to address this very real, necessary and needed project.

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Mrs. Cunningham: My question is for the Minister of Skills Development, and I am certain his colleague the member for Oxford (Mr. Tatham) will be most interested in his response.

The minister has stated that he is working with four other ministries to develop a comprehensive, systematic labour market policy. We do not need another make-work project for five ministries. What we do need are more apprenticeship programs for Ontario’s young people. What specific plan has the minister made, specifically with the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward), to improve the interface between secondary schools

Mr. Speaker: New question, the member for Lake Nipigon.

Mr. Pouliot: Yes, indeed, when is the minister going to start doing his job?

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I thought there were three main contestants up in the member’s -- are there only two? I guess that is why the member has been absent. He has been quite busy recently, has he?

I can tell the member that we too consider that a very high priority when we are able to get on with some work, but I would remind him his colleague the member for Algoma (Mr. Wild-man) and others also have what they consider the number one priority for widening and rehabilitating the same highway. We are working very closely with all of those members and all of the delegations and other interested parties that the member has talked to and referred to with respect to getting on with the project, but he will be aware that a number of projects, in fact from Ottawa to Kenora, are under way now.

I am sure he will also be aware, since he has visited the north just recently, that indeed we have spoken to the federal minister, as we have always said we would, and we will continue that dialogue. As recently as September, for the first time perhaps, we now have an indication that at least the federal minister of the day might be willing to sit down with the province of Ontario to address this very real, necessary and needed project.

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Mrs. Cunningham: My question is for the Minister of Skills Development, and I am certain his colleague the member for Oxford (Mr. Tatham) will be most interested in his response.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I just want to bring the honourable member up to date in that regard. I know she has a keen interest in all the apprentices, as she has indicated to me a number of times.

First, I would like to comment on the first part of the member’s question, that I am working with four other ministries. This is extremely important because we cannot do this on our own. We feel very strongly, and I am sure the member does too, that we must work with the other ministries in bringing about a very effective training culture within this province. I can report to her that my colleagues from those respective ministries are doing a terrific job in order to bring about this training culture.

Having said that, we were committed very strongly to increasing apprenticeships from 40,000 to 60,000 within five years. Again, I would like to report to the honourable member that as of today, we have 45,000 apprentices in the system. I think that is quite a commendable task that we have done.

Mrs. Cunningham: The Ministry of Skills Development and the Ministry of Housing hosted a great building industry extravaganza last May in Toronto, which 50,000 students attended from across this province. The minister has had seven months to plan for follow-up action to this building industry conference. It is crucial that our schools, students and teachers get the leadership they need from the government today.

Will the minister stand in the House today and reveal his specific plans for a course of action to implement additional apprenticeship programs in the building trades for our young people?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I want to commend the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) for that very progressive conference that was put on in Future Building ‘88, attracting a number of students from across the province. As a matter of fact, the honourable member shared with me how excited she was about the fact that many people came from London to participate. I think it was very effective. They had a taste of what the construction industry can offer.

The boom in the economy today, especially in the construction industry, has really demanded much more than we can supply. Apprentices or journeymen cannot be delivered within a week, two weeks or three weeks. I have just demonstrated to the member that in one year we have added 5,000 more apprentices in the program. As a matter of fact, I just want to touch a little bit on the previous question -- and this is extremely important -- about two schools that are working co-operatively in bringing about an apprenticeship program, one in Wellington, which I feel will serve the needs of this province for a long time to come.

1430

REGULATORY PROCESS

Mr. Fleet: My question is for the Attorney General. Last June, as a committee chairman, I tabled in the Legislature the regulatory reform report. Every single person in Ontario is affected by literally thousands of regulations. Following an extensive review, this report documented a need for broad reform and advanced 44 specific recommendations. They are based on three principles: fair treatment of the public, greater public accessibility to regulations and more effective legislative accountability.

I would like to ask the Attorney General what steps the government has taken towards reform and when a comprehensive government response will be tabled in the Legislature.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I would like to thank the member for High Park-Swansea for his question and to congratulate him, as chairman, and the members of the standing committee on regulations and private bills, who really prepared, if I may respectfully say so, an extensive and very valuable report on what is regarded by many as a relatively dry subject, the subject of regulations. As the committee pointed out, it is a subject that is of very great importance to ordinary Ontario citizens, whether they know it or not, and, as he says, a package of very fundamental recommendations about change was made.

Regulations, of course, are issued by cabinet, the Lieutenant Governor in Council, on the recommendation of ministries, and almost every ministry under one statute or another has an interest in regulations. What we are doing presently is trying to sample the opinion of the various ministries about the proposals that have been made by the committee. I hope that in due course we will be able to make the appropriate response to the House.

Mr. Fleet: What is most important is the government’s commitment to reform. Will the Attorney General make a commitment that the government response will be reform-oriented and based on the three important principles of greater fairness to the public, greater accessibility for the public and more effective legislative accountability?

Hon. Mr. Scott: Both the member for High Park-Swansea and I in St. George-St. David, as we knocked off our opponents in the last election, did so because we made a commitment to reform. I know that he would share with other members of the government the responsibility of carrying this forward, not only generally but in the regulatory field as well, and I hope we will.

INTERVAL AND TRANSITION HOUSES

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I would like to go back to the Minister of Community and Social Services, the keeper of the lists in the province, and go back again, if I might, to the whole question of funding for battered women’s services. The minister has talked a great deal about the moneys put into promotion and some ancillary services, but will he confirm to the House today that his government has done little in terms of adding beds in transition houses other than what the Tories under Frank Drea promised in terms of family resource centres? Has he built any new transition houses themselves since he has been in power? How many beds is he responsible for?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member refers to the family resource centres, which in fact we have opened up in northern Ontario. He well knows that, in addition to other services, these centres are designed to meet the needs of abused and battered women and are being used for that purpose. There are 14 of those spread across northern Ontario. The member will also know that recently in Windsor 40 more beds were opened up.

But I want to draw to the member’s attention that the advocacy group for victims of family violence clearly indicated to us a couple of years ago that stabilizing the funding for existing transition houses was their first priority. Their second priority was having child counselling services in those transition houses. Their third priority was having counselling services in the community. Their fourth priority was having a telephone service and a transportation service. All of those things have been done.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Far be it from me to say that the minister is not being exactly accurate in the way he has portrayed their demands. They will be back to him on November 28, and then he will hear again very clearly the need for real transition houses. As the minister knows, 12 of those family resource centres were promised by the Tories, 12 of the 14 he is talking about.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Who delivered them?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: They were already prebudgeted; the minister knows that. How many new beds has he brought in to account for this incredible demand: nine people coming, one person being served? These are battered women in real need of assistance. Where are the new spaces the minister has added?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: We come back to the argument we have had with respect to other services of our ministry. With a certain number of resources, what do you use them for?

We were clearly asked by the advocacy groups, rather than build new transition houses, rather than add on more beds, that we had an initial responsibility to stabilize the funding for the beds we presently had. We have done that. We have added $3,000 per bed for internal counselling. We have added funding for the child services within the house, which they were asking for. We are currently negotiating with the houses across the province to pay for, in addition to their basic per diem, between 80 per cent and 100 per cent of the costs that then reside.

Those were things we were asked to do before we added new beds. We can do one or the other, but we cannot do both.

RENT REGULATION

Mr. Harris: My question is for the Minister of Housing and it relates to the rent review process. Can the minister tell us what percentage of decisions on rent review applications are appealed and therefore must go on to the rent review hearings stage?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I do not have the exact numbers of that today. I will be glad to get the numbers for the member at the next opportunity.

Mr. Harris: The target was 25 per cent. I do not think anybody thinks that target is being met. Even at 25 per cent, with a backlog of 21,000, that means there are 5,250 ready to go on to appeal. With 23 commissioners hearing 15 cases a month, really what the minister is looking at is a minimum of 15 months, assuming she was on the target of 25 per cent. Not all the commissioners are full-time. We know it is more than 25 per cent, and that is only if there are no new applications.

Clearly, what we have here is a situation that everybody has recognized -- the industry, tenants, landlords, developers, legislators, the media -- that this legislation is not working.

If the minister does not even know what the percentage is, does not know what is going on in the ministry, there really is not any point in my asking a supplementary on the rest of the question.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I really do not know whether there was a question there.

Interjections.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: Let me pretend there was and try to answer it.

Mr Speaker: Order.

1440

CONTRACTING OF MINISTRY SERVICES

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. Can the minister confirm these figures, which were provided at the forum on contracting out, by members of the Ministry of Natural Resources staff? They stated that it costs, on average, 18 cents per tree under the forest management agreements, about 16 cents per tree for a contractor and nine cents per tree when the work is done by the Ministry of Natural Resources staff for the replanting program. Can the minister confirm those figures?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: No, I cannot.

Mr. Wildman: I am not sure if that means that he just cannot confirm the figures or that he does not think they are right. These figures were provided by ministry staff.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I knew that.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: You agreed with the first two figures he used.

Mr. Speaker: I wonder if I could have the attention of all members of the House. I know the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) is struggling with laryngitis. Would you assist him?

Mr. Wildman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I said that these figures were provided by the ministry staff. The minister says he does not know that. I just said it. Frankly, I said it and it is true.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a supplementary?

Mr. Wildman: I believe he is an honourable member; surely he believes I am, too. If these figures are correct, it costs approximately one half for the work to be done by the ministry staff themselves. If that is the case and there is a shortage of funding for replanting, why is the ministry not doing more of the work itself so we can get more work done for the money we have?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: There was an initiative taken -- and I am sure all members realize that was the case -- that we would move some of the forestry practices into the private sector: growing, planting, doing many things. I think the member would be the first to admit that we have provided many opportunities for people in northern Ontario to become very much involved in forestry practice.

Now, I must tell him that the ultimate goal for our ministry is to get the numbers of trees planted that are going to provide the kind of jobs, the kind of parks and the kind of involvement for all the people to enjoy. While he is stating some figures -- and I hesitate ever to agree with figures that are stated until I examine them myself -- I am prepared to share one bit of figures with the member. When we look back at my involvement with forestry practices and the planting, I will just put a few numbers on the record for him. In fiscal year 1984-85, we planted 128 million trees; in 1985-86, 150 million trees; in 1986-87, 155 million trees; in 1987-88, 160 million trees; and in 1988-89, 163 million trees. We not only plant them but we nurture them and we tend them until they are free to grow. Forestry is in excellent hands, I must tell the member, and it is going to get even better.

ROUGE VALLEY

Mrs. Marland: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Obviously, things are looking up on this side of the House.

The Premier (Mr. Peterson) refuses to discuss his government’s plan for the Rouge, and I mean the entire Rouge area. He talks in circles and in evasive terms about the broader picture.

Let’s avoid the broader picture and talk specifics. Months ago the minister and his colleagues spoke about the cabinet reviewing the Rouge land. After each ministry responded, there would be an announcement. I believe the term “very soon” was used. Now that the cabinet must have studied this issue to death, when can we expect the announcement about the future of the Rouge lands?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I am sure that we will have some reply very soon. The Premier has already made a commitment as to what is going to happen to the Rouge. But you know, the influence of the Rouge is not that one small area; it extends right up a long way north, as the member knows. We are looking at that. We are in touch with the municipal councils. They are dealing with that, and we will be coming back with that very soon.

Mrs. Marland: The point is that the minister should know that yes, the municipal council, Scarborough city council, dealt with it in June. It passed its amending bylaw in June. Metro council has also passed it. They are now waiting for the Ontario government to take a position. I would like to say at this point that I applaud the people of Scarborough, because now that they have elected Mayor Joyce Trimmer, we will not have any concern at the local level about the Rouge, but we do have a concern at the provincial level.

When the minister says again that he will have the announcement very soon, I think it is a little unfair, because that is the answer we have been getting now for almost one year. Would he answer for me when his ministry will approve the Scarborough official plan amendment to zone the Rouge property for rural recreation?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: We are reviewing the comments from the municipality. Of course, there is a new mayor and a new council. I am sure they will want to have some extra input into that also, so we will be dealing with it fairly soon indeed.

PROPOSED LANDFILL SITE

Mr. Charlton: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. The minister will be aware that Steetley Industries in Flamboro has made application to convert a limestone quarry to a landfill site. I attended last week with a group of citizens in the Greensville area and viewed the site, and I would be curious whether the minister is even seriously considering this proposal for a licensed landfill site in this quarry, which is obviously totally unsuitable. Would the minister please comment on his view of this application?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As is the case with all information that is sought about the process or applications that come before the Ministry of the Environment, they are assessed very carefully by environmental officers, not only people from the Ministry of the Environment itself, although they have the lead role in that kind of assessment, but also people from the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and others who may have a commenting activity. As well as health considerations we have environmental considerations.

In this particular instance, we are very interested in the kinds of matters that the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton) brings to our attention. I know the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Ward) has expressed the same point of view, that there are concerns about the potential forest site there.

Now, a Minister of the Environment is in the position of ensuring that it is assessed environmentally. If I were to block every proposal at the initial instance, we would not have anything at all in Ontario in terms of waste disposal. Even the process we have at the present time, I say to the member for Hamilton Mountain, is severely criticized by those who want to move it along faster and do not want to spend a lot of money.

I happen to think that system is essential to protect the environment. The member for Hamilton Mountain would know from his experience with the Upper Ottawa Street site, for instance, that that would have been able to use an environmental assessment, and it might have avoided many of the problems that he knows about and has brought to the House’s attention and the remedial action that had to be taken as a result.

Mr. Charlton: I understand the minister’s general comment about not wanting to reject applications outright at the first stage. On the other hand, the minister is all too clearly aware of the problems we have had right across this province with quarries that have been used for landfill sites, including the Upper Ottawa Street landfill site. They leak like sieves; they are like a can with no top and no bottom.

Will the Minister assure this House that there will be no open quarries approved for landfill sites until we have in this province a tested and proven landfill liner technology in place?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: There are two aspects to that answer. First of all, the Ministry of the Environment itself is very interested in that kind of proposed technology -- in other words, that people have to justify, before our ministry accepts it, that it is environmentally safe.

In addition to that, you find when there is a board hearing under the auspices of the Environmental Assessment Board -- and I should say to the member, because he would be interested in this, that if this proposal were to come forward to the Ministry of the Environment in a formal way, it must go under the Environmental Assessment Act, not the Environmental Protection Act, even though it is private sector and in the past you did not have to put it under the Environmental Assessment Act; I want to assure him of that.

The Environmental Assessment Board will take into consideration such things as, is there the potential of leachate leaking from a site of this kind and what are the possibilities of remedial action that could be taken to ensure that the leachate would not escape into the natural environment? If they are unable to justify that, if they are unable to provide the technical information that is absolutely necessary to justify this kind of proposal, it would not be accepted by the Environmental Assessment Board.

Mr. Speaker: That actually was a very brief answer; it was only 73 seconds.

1450

PETITIONS

MADAWASKA HIGHLANDS REGIONAL TRUST PARK

Mr. Pollock: To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from 1,500 people, which reads as follows:

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

“We wish to oppose the Madawaska highlands regional trust proposal. We want the Legislature of Ontario to have a full debate in the Legislature on this matter and hearings to be held in the communities affected,” before any legislation is ever put in place.

Mr. Speaker: Could I have the attention of all members? There are many private conversations and even conversations from members not in their own seats.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

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

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

“To amend the Teachers’ Superannuation Act, 1983, in order that all teachers who retired prior to May 31, 1982, have their pensions recalculated on the best five years rather than at the present seven or 10 years.

“This proposed amendment would make the five-year criteria applicable to all retired teachers and would eliminate the present inequitable treatment.”

It is signed by 77 and also myself.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Dietsch: I have a petition:

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

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

“Whereas we strongly oppose the intention of Bill 113 for Sunday opening, we believe that the Ontario government must act to maintain Sunday as a common pause day.”

It is signed by a number of employees from Autotrend Acura in my riding, and I have affixed my name thereto.

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY

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

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows” -- 243 signatures from the Church of Scientology.

I would like to table it at this time.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Neumann from the standing committee on social development reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1989:

Ministry administration program, $5,874,400; university support program, $1,648,759,400; college support program, $709,063,500; student affairs program, $202,959,800.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Furlong from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

The committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr18, An Act respecting the Sarnia Kiwanis Foundation Inc.;

Bill Pr63, An Act to revive Tavone Enterprises Limited; and

Bill Pr 65, An Act respecting the Kitchener and Waterloo Community Foundation.

Your committee recommends that the fees, less the actual cost of printing, be remitted on Bill Pr18, An Act respecting the Sarnia Kiwanis Foundation Inc., and Bill Pr65, An Act respecting the Kitchener and Waterloo Community Foundation.

Motion agreed to.

MOTION

REFERRAL OF BILL 78

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that the order of the House referring Bill 78, An Act respecting the Sale of Farm Implements, to the standing committee on resources development be rescinded and the bill referred to the committee of the whole House.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Let me speak to that motion very briefly. For the information of the House, we had a very good debate in here yesterday in which such of my colleagues as the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) and the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) participated.

We had decided yesterday to refer the bill in question out to the standing committee on resources development. An overnight discussion has taken place and it has now been decided that it would be more appropriate to have that bill back in the committee of the whole.

If I might on this motion indicate the order of business today, we will proceed with the second reading of Bill 83, after which we will return to committee of the whole on Bill 78, which this motion will make possible.

Mr. Wildman: New Democrat is the name; compromise is the game.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FARM PRACTICES PROTECTION ACT

Hon. Mr. Riddell moved second reading of Bill 83, An Act respecting the Protection of Farm Practices.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I am tabling for second reading the Farm Practices Protection Act. The bill is intended to protect the farmers of this province from nuisance law suits against normal farming practices.

Ontario farmers have become increasingly concerned that normal farm practices may result in complaints, harassment and court actions under the common law of nuisance initiated by neighbours in the rural communities. Our farmers need the freedom to carry on normal farm practices to produce one of life’s essential elements, our food. Carrying out this important task can result in noise, odour or dust.

In response to these concerns raised by individual farmers and farm organizations such as the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, I appointed the Minister’s Right to Farm Advisory Committee in February 1986. In its mandate, the committee was responsible for advising me on policy options for ensuring that Ontario farm operations have adequate protection from complaints against normal farming practices.

Among its activities, the right to farm advisory committee held public hearings across the province. Some 280 farm and nonfarm organizations, municipalities and individuals made oral presentations or submitted briefs to the committee and the ministry on the issue of the right to farm.

As a result, the committee recommended in its report to me that, among other things, “new legislation be enacted as soon as possible for the purpose of ensuring that farmers have protection against nuisance actions over normal farming practices….”

Under the proposed act, a Farm Practices Protection Board will be established. Individuals who complain about odour, noise or dust from farm practices may ask the board to investigate and the board could hold hearings on such complaints referred to it.

The Farm Practices Protection Act also enables the board to dismiss complaints if the noise, dust or odour resulted from a normal farming practice or to issue an order to rectify the problem if it is found not to be a normal farming practice.

As with right-to-farm legislation of other provinces and states, a farm operation under this proposed act must also comply with existing environmental, public health and land use control laws.

It is important to note that “right to farm” under this legislation does not mean the right to pollute. An underlying principle of this act is the requirement that farm practices continue to comply with other provincial legislation, specifically the Environmental Protection Act, the Pesticides Act, the Public Health Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act.

However, farm organizations have expressed concern that farmers could be subject to charges under the Environmental Protection Act due to the noise, odour or dust arising from normal farming practices.

Under protocols developed with the Ministry of the Environment, staff responsibilities for dealing with complaints about noise, odour or dust have been established. The intent is that where a complaint cannot be resolved or otherwise addressed by staff, the complainant can direct the complaint to the Farm Practices Protection Board. The board will then make its determination as to whether the farm practice is normal. This determination by the board will be made before any decision is made whether to proceed under the Environmental Protection Act.

1500

The Farm Practices Protection Act will confirm the view that agriculture is the primary land use within agricultural areas of Ontario. It will help in dealing with current and future nuisance incidents arising from existing conditions. I ask the members of this Legislature to assist in providing future stability for this sector of the Ontario agricultural industry by approving the second reading of the Farm Practices Protection Act. With their approval, the farmers of this province can carry on the normal and economically significant business of farming without the threat of legal action under the common law of nuisance.

I anticipate that the bill will go to committee. I had hoped that it would go to committee of the whole House where we could deal with it and have the legislation in place for those farmers who are anxiously waiting to get this legislation, but when it does go to committee I will be making one minor amendment that I wish to introduce to subsection 6(2) of the bill which will include a reference to the Pesticides Act.

Mr. Wildman: I would like to apologize to members of the House for the condition of my voice. I will attempt to carry on as best I can.

As the minister indicated, this is a significant piece of legislation and one that has been awaited for some time and has been discussed in this House, as well as in the farm community, for a good deal of time.

I recall that a former member, Ronald McNeil from Elgin, first introduced a private member’s bill some years ago for the protection of farm practices -- the right-to-farm legislation -- in this House. It was debated and carried by the House and was a matter of unanimous concern, even among urban members of the Legislature.

The bill that we have before us, Bill 83, tries to deal with these concerns. As we all know, as development patterns in rural areas and farm technology have changed over the years, conflicts have developed over land use. These conflicts have increased in recent years, particularly with the boom in the development of housing subdivisions and communities on areas of land that were traditionally mainly agricultural in the area of southern Ontario. This has led to serious concerns.

As urbanites have fled the tumult and the pollution of cities, these conflicts have increased dramatically. There are two sides to this. A cynic might ask: “Who sold the land to the developers? Who then built the houses for the urbanites?” Obviously it was someone who was farming the land or owned the farm land in the past. So in a sense, the farm community has also contributed to the development of these conflicts.

I think that is too simple an explanation, however. I think that a couple of the reasons that we have had these developments in the farm community relate first to the financial crisis that many farmers have found themselves in over the last few years, the fact that even farmers who were doing well viewed their farm, their land, as their retirement income, and as farming became financially more difficult, it was more and more difficult to sell the land to a young farmer or a young person who wanted to go into farming.

Particularly as development extended into the more rural areas, the value of the land, the real estate, increased and made it more difficult for people who might be considering farming to purchase that land. With the escalation of the value of the land, more and more of this land was purchased by developers and people who had other reasons for wanting to purchase the land than farming.

One of the other reasons, of course, was that there was inadequate land use planning, and I do not blame even the small municipalities for this. I think if there is any blame to be shared, that rests with the provincial government: the previous government and this government.

We have talked a lot over the years in this assembly about the need to preserve farm land. We have looked at what other provinces have done. We have seen the legislation that has been passed in jurisdictions such as British Columbia, for instance, but we have not done anything. We have land use guidelines which are just that: they are guidelines. They do not have the force of law.

So we have the development of these conflicts. Many people from urban Ontario, when they move into a rural area, do not understand the kinds of practices, or nuisances as they would refer to them, that are quite normal in a rural area. The bill refers to three things specifically: odour, noise and dust. All of us who have ever lived in a rural area, or even visited a rural area, realize that there are odours associated with various farm practices which no one finds particularly pleasant but which farm people, and rural people generally, accept as a necessary part of fanning.

I suppose when an urban person moves into a rural area and has purchased an estate lot and built a lovely house right next door to a farm, he does not appreciate it when his neighbour, the farmer, spreads his pig manure on a field neighbouring his property so for a few days there is a significant odour associated with the neighbouring farm.

But frankly, as a person who has lived in rural areas most of my life -- for a short period of time I lived in a city -- and who has been involved with the farm community in one way or another from time to time throughout my life, I find it hard to understand how it is an urban person who decides to move to a rural area does not realize that he is going to have these odours and that he is going to have to put up with them, but in many cases he does not want to.

1510

In terms of noise, you will find a situation where we all know that you have to make hay when the sun shines. If there is good weather, and you are in harvesting or planting season, for instance, the farmer wants to be able to run his machinery from dawn to dusk, if necessary, to get the job done, and even, in cases, to go on beyond darkness because the farmers have to get the job done while they have good weather. Unfortunately, many people who move into the rural areas seem to think that a farmer should only be operating from nine to five.

Mr. Villeneuve: Even on a Sunday?

Mr. Wildman: My wife grew up on a dairy farm and her father always took the attitude that Sunday was Sunday. I suppose that like the present government, he exercised the local option and no matter what the weather was like, he did not work on Sunday. Even if it had been raining all week and he had hay to take off and it was a nice day on Sunday, he still did not work. However, that is not “normal,” I suppose, to use the word in the legislation today. If a farmer has good weather and he needs to get his crop off, even if it is a Sunday, he will work.

Certainly a person from an urban area who is used to seeing the weekend as a time for recreation and rest does not appreciate it when a piece of heavy equipment right next door starts operating on his nice quiet Sunday afternoon when he is out barbecuing in the backyard. So we run into these kinds of conflicts.

Obviously, if you are tilling the land and there is any kind of breeze, even with the new methods and the new concern for land stewardship, there is going to be dust. Farmers, in their operations, produce dust. If you have wind, that dust then can blow on to the neighbour’s property, and the neighbour does not appreciate having to clean the house continually to get rid of the dust. So we have these conflicts.

The conflicts are not just between neighbours in the sense that the urban person or a group of people living next door to the farm might not like the way their neighbour, the farmer, is operating. What happens is that it spills into municipal politics. We have situations where township councils become dominated by urban people or ex-urban people who, as their numbers increase in the population of the community, run in elections, as is their right, and get elected to council. They may not have the same understanding of the farm and how it operates as the people who have been born and raised in that community.

They have a tendency to listen to complaints from their constituents, who are less sympathetic to the farm and to the farmer. They tend to pass bylaws limiting the hours of work, for instance, and regulating odours, noise and dust. Some of these regulations make it very difficult for the farmer to carry out his operation. So we have these serious concerns.

In answer to these concerns, as I said earlier, we have had discussions about legislation in this House. I congratulate our former colleague, Ron McNeil, for bringing before the House the right-to-farm legislation that was passed by the House.

In answer to that, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, as the minister indicated, appointed a task force to consult with the various players in the field -- that is not supposed to be a bad pun -- and to make recommendations on how we could legislate protection of farm practices. Those recommendations then became the basis for Bill 83, which is before us today.

In the bill it states that the purpose is, “...to protect persons engaged in agricultural operations from claims for nuisance in respect of odour, noise or dust resulting from those operations if they are normal farm practices.” I am in support of this purpose, but I have some problems with the wording, and I will be talking about that in a few moments.

I think “nuisance” is a good word, and it should not be limited just to three particular types of nuisance, because there may be other conflicts that develop over a nuisance which do not involve odour, noise or dust. For instance, I suppose a farmer might have an aircraft come in and do aerial spraying of a pesticide or something and the breeze might carry that pesticide on to the neighbour’s property. That would not entail odour or dust or even noise perhaps, but it might be considered a nuisance and it might produce a conflict.

If this board which is being proposed, the Farm Practices Protection Board, in the legislation is to be able to deal with nuisances, I think it should be able to deal with all nuisances, not just nuisances related to these three matters.

Also, the bill uses throughout the term “normal farm practices.” We know the Ontario Federation of Agriculture in its discussions with the ministry on the development of this legislation has raised some concerns about the word “normal” and has suggested that perhaps we should be looking at another wording. I will be dealing with that in a few moments.

The responsibility of the board will be to try to resolve any disputes about what constitutes a “normal farm practice.” I said earlier that we support and are sympathetic to this view and to the purposes of the act, but really in our party what we think is necessary is proper land use planning and land use control.

In our view, the Food Land Guidelines have not worked. We need to include food land preservation policy in municipal plans. We must enact a food land policy statement under the Planning Act which would have the force of law and would require municipalities to include food land policy statements as part of their official plans and could then be enforced.

I support the position of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture in its demand that we should be setting aside agricultural preserves as part of our land use planning. It is unfortunate that this government at this time has not acted on that request of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. That is a position that is also supported by the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario. I think it is something we have to look very seriously at.

All of us in this House know the kind of development boom taking place around Metropolitan Toronto particularly. It is also happening in eastern Ontario around Ottawa, in the Ottawa-Carleton area, and to a lesser extent around other urban areas in the province. We cannot continue, if we are serious about farming and agriculture as the basic industry in this province, to allow good farmland, classes 1, 2 and 3 farm land, to go into housing.

As someone who represents not only a rural area but also a northern constituency, I would say those of us from northern Ontario find it very difficult to understand why people living in this part of the province seem to think it is a good thing that we continue to concentrate everything, all kinds of development, all kinds of urban and industrial development, on the good farm land in southern Ontario while our part of the province is being depleted in terms of population. People are having to leave our part of the province to come here to get employment and to find a place to live and work.

It just does not make sense, but if we are going to change that, it is not going to be changed by pious statements in the House. It is not going to be changed by guidelines. It is going to take political will on the part of the government of the day to pass laws and regulations that will require serious land use planning and direction of growth into low-growth areas.

1520

Part of that serious planning must be the setting aside of good agricultural land in agricultural preserves. We must be moving to prevent further urban encroachment into rural areas through sound land use planning. We -- the government and municipalities -- already have the right to prohibit severances of farm land. As a representative of a rural area, I know the problems that all MPPs from rural Ontario run into when a farmer wants to sever a lot for sale, particularly when things have not been going well on the farm and this is a way of supplementing the income.

In the short term, the farmer wants to be able to sell some land and supplement his income in that way. However, it is short term, because in the long run, you get all kinds of problems unless there are serious controls on the severances of farm land and the concentration of development into, at least, small towns.

So, we can prohibit severances of farm land and we can be doing something about development of housing on prime farm land, but what is missing is the political resolve to withstand development pressures.

I have read with interest the newspaper articles about what is happening in the environs of Metropolitan Toronto, north of Toronto in the York area. I do not know whether all of the allegations put forward in the newspaper stories are correct, but I do know that if you have a number of wealthy developers who want to build, it is not inconceivable that they would be able to put a great deal of pressure on municipal politicians to allow for those developments, even if that municipality has a land use plan, an official plan which sets land aside. It is not a healthy situation for those communities, in my view, and it certainly is not a healthy situation for the province as a whole, or for agriculture in Ontario.

I am concerned about this legislation specifically, though, because I think Bill 83 raises false hopes. I do not think that Bill 83 in itself is going to prevent the kinds of difficulties and conflicts between the farm community and urban people who move into the rural areas unless it is combined with a serious attempt at proper land use planning.

There are other problems with Bill 83, and I referred to them earlier. If you concentrate on the term “normal farm practices,” in a particular area something might be a normal farm practice which is not necessarily the best farm practice. By concentrating on the term “normal,” this bill may indeed retard implementation of new farming techniques and new technologies that might indeed improve the efficiency of the farm at the same time as limiting nuisances.

As long as normal farm practices are protected, there is little incentive to follow the lead of other farmers who have upgraded their facilities, perhaps at considerable expense. Under the bill, the normal farm practice is defined as a practice “conducted in a manner consistent with … similar agricultural operations under similar circumstances.” Something could be normal but also at the same time unnecessary, unreasonable or inefficient, but it still could be a common practice and in common use.

Some people would say: “The market does not work that way. ff the practice is inefficient, the farmer is not going to continue that practice, because it is going to put him in a situation that makes it difficult for him to compete with the other farmers working in the same sector.” That is not necessarily true, particularly if that farmer is experiencing a cash flow problem and to upgrade would in fact cost him more money than he thinks he can afford. For instance, we have all heard about the celebrated bird-banger case, which I understand was just last month finally settled out of court.

I do not think the settlement really solved the concerns of either the owner of the farm or his neighbours, but at least it was settled. I do not think that Bill 83, frankly, as it is drafted, is going to resolve the problems that were presented in the bird-banger case. As the minister indicated, the farmer and the board, if it is hearing a dispute, are subject to other pieces of legislation, such as the Environmental Protection Act. The Environmental Protection Act sets a limit of 70 decibels for noise. Sometimes during question period in this assembly I am certain that we reach levels quite in excess of 70 decibels.

Mr. Villeneuve: Not when you have laryngitis.

Mr. Wildman: Not when you have laryngitis. If those provisions and regulations on the Environmental Protection Act still apply, then Bill 83 is not going to resolve the problems that resulted from the use of the bird-banger to protect fruit from the flocks of birds that would like to consume the fruit rather than have the farmer be able to harvest it. Now, I understand that as part of the settlement of this case, they are going to be able to continue to use the bird-banger with some restrictions. They will have to erect some sound barriers to protect the neighbours.

Perhaps this is a good idea, but the erection of the sound barriers, as I understand it, was not part of a normal farm practice. So if the board is going to consider these kinds of issues, it will not be able to say that you should have noise barriers, because that is not part of the normal practice in the area. Maybe it should be able to say that.

1530

Some environmentalists and environmental organizations have raised another example. I have talked about the problems of odour related to manure. Manure does not just have a pollution problem related to odour. We know that if manure is not properly stored, in times of heavy rain it can produce runoff that will contaminate ground water and streams in the area.

In many parts of Ontario, in my part particularly, it is common practice for farmers who have livestock, whether it be a dairy farm, a beef operation, hogs or whatever, to store the manure simply in a pile behind the barn or in a pit behind the barn. That is a normal farm practice that may in fact produce pollution the farmer does not want to produce, but that has always been the way it was done and it is normal.

It has been suggested, and it is in use in some parts of the province, storing the manure you intend to use later on the land in a concrete tank or a metal tank. If you do it that way, it is less likely to run off and contaminate ground water. This is not exactly a tremendously innovative technology, but it is expensive and so it is not in general use.

As long as it were normal to pile manure behind the barn without these kinds of protections, if someone complained manure was not being properly stored, then the farmer could go to the board, I suppose, under this legislation, and say, “Well, this is normal.”

The question is, is it reasonable? It may be normal, but is it reasonable?

All of us in this House, particularly those from rural Ontario, know about the need for improved stewardship of our soil and water resources. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food has recognized that through the land stewardship program. Agriculture in Ontario, and in Canada for that matter, faces a very serious problem of soil erosion and soil degradation. Because of our tillage techniques that have been used in the past, much of our topsoil has been blown away in dust. A lot of it has been subject to water erosion and runoff into water courses. This harms the fertility of the topsoil, but it also then adversely affects the water courses in the rural areas and eventually ends up in the lakes, because that soil often carries with it pesticides and fertilizers into the water.

I think Bill 83 would be more effective if it were amended, wherever it now says in the bill, “normal farm practice,” to say, “reasonable farm practice,” because what is normal may not in fact be reasonable. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture has suggested this change and I support it in that proposal.

I think that like other industries, farming should be required to use the most effective technology and the most advanced management practices, not only to protect our environment and to avoid nuisances, but also for the good of agriculture itself and for the good of farming, farmers and the farm community.

Under this bill, the board apparently has no investigative powers, so my question is, when a matter is brought before the board and when somebody is charging that there is a nuisance involved in a farm practice, who does the investigation? It is not clear from the bill as presented by the minister. It appears that perhaps the only evidence the board will have to consider will be provided in the testimony before the board. Perhaps that is not enough, so I hope the minister can clarify this.

Will the board have any investigative power? It does say in one section of the bill that the board can hire any person who has a particular kind of expertise to advise the board in resolving a dispute. Would that kind of person be able to carry out an investigation of the nuisance? I would hope so.

Also, under the legislation as it is now drafted, the board has no power to award a complainant any compensation if the complaint about the nuisance is found to be well-founded. All the board can do is order the farmer to remedy the offending farm practice.

In other words, in a case such as the bird-banger case, the board could say, if it found the practice being carried out -- the use of the bird-banger -- was in fact a nuisance, it could say to the farmer, “You have to stop using the bird-banger,” or more likely, it would say: “You can continue to use the bird-banger, but you can’t use amplifiers. You may be required to limit the number of times the bird-banger goes off in an hour, and you may have to put up sound barriers.” But they would not be able to award any compensation to a person who has had to endure the nuisance in the past. Perhaps they should be able to if the board thought it justified.

As I indicated earlier, I also do not understand why the minister and his staff, in drafting this bill, limited nuisances to dust, odour and noise. There are other nuisances that could be brought before the board, and if what we are attempting to do is avoid court action -- I think that is one of the main purposes of the legislation, to give both the people who are complaining and the farmer the opportunity to have some third party mediate a dispute and try to resolve a dispute to avoid them having to go to court.

Of course, under the legislation, it states that if one or other of the parties is not satisfied with the decision of the board, that party then can appeal to the Divisional Court. But that is very expensive. The bird-banger case is a good example of that. It went on for a number of years and cost the Saunders a tremendous amount of money, as well as the time involved. So we are trying to avoid court cases if we can by passing this legislation. If there is no ability of the board to award compensation, we in fact may be having more court cases. If the number of nuisances are limited to only these three, then we are going to have probably court cases about other nuisances.

I am sure ministry staff will understand that is possible and not simply say it is not likely to happen, because the bird-banger case is perhaps the most celebrated but is not the only one; we have had cases of people complaining in the Maritimes about farm practices and so on.

1540

I use the example I referred to earlier. If someone is spraying a pesticide on a crop and that pesticide drifts over on to a neighbour’s lawn or affects his flower garden, that is a nuisance; at least the person who has had his lawn and flower garden affected would probably consider it a nuisance. We do not want to have this person who is feeling aggrieved have to go to court to resolve this nuisance.

What I would prefer, and I am sure my friend would agree with me that it would be better, is if that person could simply go to his neighbour and say: “Look, your spray came across the fence and affected my garden. Are you prepared to help me resolve this problem?” and have the two of them resolve it. But if they cannot do that, I would prefer to have them go to a board rather than go to court, or even worse, go to their municipal council and ask the municipal council to pass a bylaw prohibiting the farmer from using this pesticide spray, because that could happen. And unless the pesticide smells or unless the aerial sprayer makes a lot of noise, it is not covered by this legislation.

There are a number of other small things in the bill that I would like to mention before I close.

This is a very minor one, but for one thing, in section I of the bill the drafter misspelled the word “silvicultural.” I hope that will be changed when we come to the final draft. “Silvicultural” is not spelled with an A; it is spelled with an I.

Mr. Villeneuve: Coming from a former teacher.

Mr. Wildman: This is coming from not just someone who is a former teacher, but from someone in the north who is very concerned about silviculture.

I have said also that I think the bill should be amended to change, throughout the bill, wherever it says “normal farm practice” to “reasonable.” Obviously, under section 1, the term “reasonable” will have to be defined just as “normal farm practice” is defined.

I think farmers should be using, as it states in the bill, proper methods. I think they also should be efficient and effective and should be employing the best technology they can and the best management practices they can in order to ensure not only the efficiency of their operation, but also the elimination of nuisances.

All sections of the bill that refer only to “odour, noise or dust,” as I mentioned, should be changed to just refer to “nuisance,” in my view. Although I am not a lawyer, I am advised by legislative counsel that “nuisance” is a common legal term and is understandable by people in the legal profession. As I indicated earlier as well, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture would like to see this change and I support it in that.

As well, what I would like to see is that under section 3, where it states who can be appointed to the board, it should indicate that the people appointed by the minister to the board should have some experience and knowledge of farm practices. Also, hopefully, as the federation of agriculture has suggested, they should be appointed to represent various regional parts of Ontario so that we will have a good representation of people who are interested in agriculture and in resolving these disputes.

Also, there is a suggestion we should change the number required for a quorum. I do not understand why in clause 4(1)(a) the bill states that there should be a request from “an aggrieved person.” Does that mean that only a person who actually has experienced the nuisance and is complaining could then bring a matter before the board? Could not the farmer, for instance, bring a matter before the board? The farmer in that sense would not be an aggrieved person, except, I suppose, if he was aggrieved about the complaints. It would seem sensible to me not to have the term “aggrieved” in there, but just to allow “a person,” because keep in mind the bill sets out that the board will have the right to decide if there is a trivial matter, and not proceed.

I am not suggesting we should open it up for all kinds of people just to bring matters before the board for any silly reason. It is just to allow people who are not themselves aggrieved, but have a legitimate concern about a nuisance, to bring a matter before the board.

Under the act, I have not been able to find any section of the bill that says what the board can do or what anybody can do if the board has issued an order, but the order has not been complied with. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture has suggested there should be a new section of the bill that would indicate that if an individual has not complied with an order, despite the fact that person may have been given advice by someone hired by the board on how to comply, then he should be subject to court action, and if convicted, subject to a fine.

In that way, the board would have some way of enforcing its orders and ensuring people comply with them. I do not like this kind of approach, generally. I would rather resolve things by reasonable discussion, but if that is not possible then it really often becomes necessary for quasi-judicial tribunals to have the option of enforcement by fines. I do not understand why that is not included in this legislation, because it would be silly to have a bill passed in this House that purports to set up a system for resolving these disputes, and then have people just flout the orders of the board and not carry them out and have no option for taking action in that case.

I think there are other changes that will be considered in committee. As the minister indicated, he has a minor amendment he wishes to put. I will have a number of amendments along the lines I have just outlined. I apologize to the House and to the minister for not having them ready now so that he could peruse them, but as all of us know, the decision to proceed with the agricultural legislation this week was something that was taken after the OFA met with the cabinet and the two opposition parties. All three House leaders met and agreed to put aside the legislation on workers’ compensation so that we could deal with the agricultural bills.

As a result, I have not yet prepared my amendments, and also, I was hoping that through discussions between the interested parties, the federation and the ministry, the ministry might be prepared to move and bring in some of the amendments that were requested by the OFA. It appears at this point, since the minister has indicated that he has only one amendment, that that is not going to happen.

1550

As a result, I will be introducing these amendments if the legislation passes second reading. Those amendments are currently being prepared for me by legislative counsel, and I will present them to the table and to the minister as soon as I can. I hope to have them ready tomorrow or early next week.

In my view, Bill 83 in its current form is inadequate. I do not think it pleases anyone, frankly. The farm community and farmers want right-to-farm legislation. This House has indicated in the past that the members of the House unanimously support the need for right-to-farm legislation.

I do not think that Bill 83 meets the requirements. It will please neither the farmers, unless it is amended, nor those people who might be concerned about nuisances produced by farm practices, whether they be ex-urban neighbours of farmers in the rural community or whether they be environmentalists or interest groups or whatever.

For those reasons, regretfully, on second reading, I will be opposing the legislation and the members of my caucus will be opposing the legislation. I understand numbers and I think it is likely -- although you never know -- that even though we do not support the bill as drafted, it might pass on second reading.

Mr. Villeneuve: It just might.

Mr. Wildman: It just might, and if by some fluke it passes on second reading, if my arguments about why the bill is wanting have not won over everyone on the other side or even a significant number on the other side --

Mr. Villeneuve: You wouldn’t be too disappointed.

Mr. Wildman: I won’t be too disappointed, no; and if it passes, then I hope we can have a serious debate in committee about the changes that are needed in the legislation so that we can make it better, make it do what it purports to do and make it a piece of legislation that will resolve disputes and be accepted by all of the various interested parties in these areas.

I thank the members of the House for their kindness in listening to me croak away this afternoon without too many interjections so that I did not have to raise my voice above the noise.

Mr. Villeneuve: It is also a pleasure for me to participate in the debate on Bill 83. I hope that the minister’s colleagues do have more interest in this bill than is shown in this Legislature this afternoon. I see the minister, who is also a farmer. I see the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) here. I see the Minister of Agriculture and Food’s parliamentary assistant. I see a farmer from Don Mills and a farmer from Cornwall, and that is all the Liberal members we have here. I do hope the minister’s caucus takes this legislation more seriously.

I am pleased to see Bill 83 come to the fore. I took time to participate in the minister’s task force report and did address the task force when it visited Kemptville almost two years ago, gathering information across the province in preparation for this legislation.

Agricultural producers feel threatened by existing nuisance legislation, as it does little to recognize the implications of operating modern farms. Ontario farmers have been lobbying for legislation to reduce the threat of legal action due to conflicts between themselves and nonfarm rural residents.

A court case in New Brunswick, the ruling in favour of a nonfarmer, has brought the issue to the fore once again, and I believe we have had court action, litigation, regarding bird-bangers settled very recently right here in Ontario.

In eastern Ontario, adjacent to my own riding, the minister is probably aware of pending litigation that involves dairy cows carrying cowbells, but cowbells that are a little different: they are chime-type bells. That is before the courts now. It is not an issue I am going to take sides on, but it is an issue that concerns all agricultural people, and certainly concerns those who derive their living from tillage of the soil and caring for livestock.

In the United States, right-to-farm legislation is popular; there are more than 35 pieces of state-level legislation. However, most of these items of legislation have been criticized as being vague and general, and few have been tested in the courts.

Other limitations suggest it would be premature for Ontario to take a statutory approach to this problem. However, I believe that with all the litigation and possible litigation which could occur, we will support second reading of this legislation with the intent of sending it to a committee of the Legislature, the standing committee on resources development, so we can listen to the concerns not only of people who are involved directly, farmers, but also people who would provide some valuable input about what should be contained in Bill 83, An Act respecting the Protection of Farm Practices.

I firmly believe that Ontario, vast as it is, with the great agriculture we have, faces different problems in different sections. I firmly believe that the eastern section of our province, the northern section of our province, the central section of our province and the southwestern section of our province all face different types of problems as they pertain to agriculture, and I think this should be recognized in Bill 83.

I think the minister’s task force did a commendable job, but that was only the beginning. I foresee that the standing committee of this Legislature will correct some of the problems I still see in Bill 83. I will be commenting on some of the amendments I will be bringing forth. I have tabled most of these amendments and I believe the minister has a copy of them. They address some of the concerns I and my party have.

One of the areas of concern that is not addressed is intervener funding through the Ministry of the Environment. I often wonder if the government of Ontario, through intervener funding, will be assisting groups of people who are challenging agriculture and farmers on their method of making a living, their method of tilling the soil and caring for livestock.

I believe the food land guidelines have done a considerable amount, and I know the minister is actively looking at changing some of the food land guidelines that now exist.

I can tell him there are many areas, particularly in the eastern section of this province, which have a lot of marginal land that the municipalities and all concerned would quite willingly see developed into rural, nonfarm residences; residences that may have an acre or two acres of land attached to them; residences that would be serviced by existing roads; and potential residents in these newly created homes who would look after their own well, their own sewage disposal and enhance our rural environment. In many instances, particularly where a large tract of marginal land exists, I do not believe it would create any problems for agriculture.

In my presentation to the minister’s task force in Kemptville, I urged the ministry to look seriously at the possibility of a cloud on title when creating new severances in rural Ontario, a cloud that would effectively say that the owner of this property would not challenge adjoining agriculturalists, adjoining farmers, if they were indeed acting in a normal, acceptable agricultural fashion. I understand there may be some legal problems in that, but I still maintain that this would be a way of looking after that particular problem.

1600

If I buy a parcel of land and there is a Bell Canada or an Ontario Hydro right of way on it, I simply buy with that condition attached. The case of any purchaser purchasing land where there are rights or privileges for public utilities -- common driveways are another example -- we could look at that quite seriously, and! think that is a very real possibility of addressing part of the problem.

The makeup of the Farm Practices Protection Board is also of great concern to me and my party. I believe five members to be a minimum. I would like to see a few more. Having been a member of the Ontario Farm Machinery Board, a board that has operated in the past in a very similar fashion to the way I think the Farm Practices Protection Board will be operating in the future, it concerns me when I see only five members.

Second, with respect to the makeup of this board, I would like to see at least a majority of people with direct agricultural experience or, indeed, farmers themselves actively involved in farming. I think it is most important. You have to be one to understand some of the problems that can and inevitably do occur. I certainly do not want to see Bill 83 become a problem to our people in agriculture -- in other words, where it is another set of rules that they have to abide by in order to earn a living.

My concern was in part addressed by the minister during estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food in 1985. I quote directly from one of his answers to a question of mine, in Hansard, December 3, 1985. “When you say ‘right to farm,’ the farmer has to meet all the criteria, the i’s have to be dotted and the t’s crossed.”

That was my statement. The minister’s statement:

“The farmer would be required to carry out normal farming practices. If he decides to spread manure on a day when the wind is going to take it into a residential area, I do not consider that a normal farming practice and I think the farmer has to share some responsibility in this whole matter.”

That concerns me. That was a statement by the minister himself on December 3, 1985, recorded in Hansard. I do not know. I as a farmer can tell him that earning a living at that profession is quite difficult when you have to consider the elements and the markets. If one now has to take a look at which way the wind is blowing to decide on what he will be doing that day, when indeed he should possibly be emptying that manure pit, it makes me wonder.

Mr. Pollock: That is when you call elections to find out how the wind is blowing.

Mr. Villeneuve: That is what you call taking polls. I hope a farmer does not have to take a poll to decide what he will be doing on a particular day.

As the minister knows, we have had a very wet fall in eastern Ontario and probably the same all across Ontario. For those of our farmers who are able to be emptying a manure pit right now, if the weather is suitable to do it and the fields are sufficiently dry to be able to perform that duty, I would certainly not like a situation where, because of Bill 83, these farmers would not be able to perform their normal duty of spreading barnyard manure on the field, because the wind happened to be coming from the wrong direction.

I would like to mention another interesting phenomenon. I have many city friends and, of course, they like to come out to the country. Yes, they know there is manure out there and they know there is noise. They know that at times there is dust. However, living in the sheltered area of the city, they do not get exposed to this that often. I have seen it happen on a number of occasions that when a farmer was going down the road with a load of manure that came out of a manure pit -- very normal, common, everyday stuff to us fellows who live out in rural Ontario -- the first statement was: “Look at the pollution. What kind of smell is that?”

That was someone who was really saying, “You know, it’s great to live in rural Ontario,” until all of a sudden he came upon the real thing and the real smell and the real material was there. “They are putting that on the land? They are polluting the land.” No, that is your organic farming. That is fertilizer. That is what will grow you next year’s crop.

It is difficult to understand yet easy for them to say until such time as they are put in place. “Oh, this manure doesn’t smell all that good.” They probably thought the manure smelled a bit like the pile of compost in their garden, which they could smell a bit, but certainly they did not realize that it was just a little heavier than that. These are some of the things and some of the realities that Bill 83 and its regulations will have to live with.

I will touch on some of the amendments that I and my party will be bringing forth. They are amendments that I feel will clarify, to a good degree, Bill 83 and, indeed, protect the very people it is intended to protect and not create more hoops and barriers for people who provide all of the quality food that we here in Ontario enjoy at a very reasonable price and also are able to export a good bit of to contribute to the economic wellbeing of this province.

One of my amendments will be a definition of a normal farm practice. I think my colleague the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) touched on it. I would like to be able to see a farmer who may be doing something somewhat different from what most of his neighbours are doing -- maybe he is in a different type of endeavour than most of his neighbours are in, and therefore he would not be quite normal to that particular area -- have an opinion from the board as to what is acceptable to the board and what he possibly has to change. Or has he got a clean bill of health, so to speak, in living within the regulations of Bill 83? I think that is most important, because certainly it is better to correct a bit than to be faced with a major problem and all of a sudden be left to the whims of the interpretation of different people.

The definition of “person,” I think, has to be clarified to some degree, because we have some unincorporated associations and a number of legal entities, offshoots of these, that I believe have to be clarified in Bill 83.

Credentials of the members of the board: I would very much like to see some clarification here, because the board members, in effect, will be the ones who make Bill 83 work or have it damned by the rural population and our agricultural community. I would like to see some credentials, some requirements set out for those who will be members of the board. I would like to see the quorum increased from just the chairman and one member to at least three members -- I think that is kind of important -- and I also would like to see the number go from five to at least seven or possibly eight. It should allow a farmer to bring his own farming practices to the board at any time he so desires so that it could provide him with some guidelines.

We should make the board the first forum of dispute. This is kind of a difficult one, and I do not know what will happen. Should the board render a decision that possibly is not satisfactory to the farmer, what is his next process? I presume it would be the courts of the province. Would it be a trial dé novo -- in other words, what was discussed and presented at the board would not be used again in the courts of law? I believe this is a grey area. Certainly not being trained in legal matters, I would like to obtain some direction from the ministry and from the minister in order to further clarify what happens, if the board is not able to arrive at a satisfactory judgment, in the event of litigation and court action. Would the statements and the findings of the board be used in any way or would it simple be a trial dé novo?

1610

I believe I will close. I have a number of items of correspondence from a number of concerned people, including the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario. It outlines a number of concerns. It presented this document to myself and members of our party earlier this year on the right-to-farm issue. It states simply that: “The future lies with agricultural preserves and land trusts. Can we assume that significant initiatives are in place to pursue these options.” Certainly, I am sure we will be hearing from the Christian Farmers as well during the standing committee hearings, which I hope will be occurring in the not-too-distant future.

In closing, I want to advise the government and the minister that we will be watching Bill 83 very closely as it proceeds through committee, and certainly we will be striving towards assisting farmers and assisting agriculture in times that are most difficult so that Bill 83 does not become a burden to agriculture, but indeed provides a vehicle to assist them in earning a living and continuing to provide this province with a buoyant farming economy.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I do want to thank my colleagues for the comments -- very worthwhile, I felt -- on this bill expressing the concerns that they have, and I trust conveying the concerns that they have heard from members of the agricultural community or farm organizations, or whatever the case may be. They have indicated they are going to send this out to a standing committee, so perhaps with that in mind I can keep my remarks fairly brief because it looks as if there is going to be another full-blown discussion in committee, although we thought we had gone through quite a consultation process when we were trying to put this bill in place.

We have had public hearings on the issue of the right to farm. I want to tell the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) that we are following legislative examples set in other provinces, so we have made a study of legislation that they have. We have even gone one step further than they have in other provinces by the establishment of this Farm Practices Protection Board to resolve complaints. In the other provinces and other jurisdictions, they leave the resolution of complaints to the courts.

We think we have a good bill here. I somewhat regret that it is going to take more time before we can actually pass this bill into legislation, because I know that the farmers are most anxious to get this piece of legislation. But there are no guarantees or assurances that we can get at this in this session. I do not think there are any guarantees. I would hope we could. I will certainly apply all of the influence that I can to get this bill into committee and out of committee and passed into legislation. As I say, however, there are no assurances that I can do that.

With respect to the comments by the member for Algoma, he dealt to some considerable extent with land use policies. I will certainly agree with him that if we had had proper planning over the past and if we had had proper agricultural land use policies, the chances of ever having to introduce this bill would be pretty remote.

However, we have allowed land to be taken out of production throughout the province. A number of severances have taken place on farm land over the past. In many cases, a piece of land was severed to be used by the retiring parents on the farm, or by maybe a daughter or a son who wanted to come home and enjoy the country environment. We find that they would inhabit that house for a period of three to five years, and the first thing you know it would be on the market. Somebody from the city, clamouring for a country environment, would come out and buy that land, but would not be prepared to accept the odours, the dust and the noise accompanying good, normal farm practices.

So there is no question that we have needed good land use policies over the past. We have not had them. I will give credit to the former government for bringing in the Food Land Guidelines which I think have done a reasonably good job in some areas of the province. Some municipalities have incorporated the Food Land Guidelines into their planning process. They have taken steps to preserve as much agricultural land as possible. But I also know that other municipalities have chosen, by and large, to ignore the Food Land Guidelines.

With that in mind, we have been working on an agricultural land use policy, which I hope I can announce in the House this session. We are presently holding discussions with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. But I hope that we are finalizing this policy. Once I introduce it in the House, as you people well know, it becomes a part of the Planning Act because there is a part in the Planning Act which states that if a minister of the crown feels that there is something of significant provincial importance, that can become part of the Planning Act. When I do make my announcement in the House, it will become a part of the Planning Act. Then the municipalities shall be guided by that policy statement.

I agree with the member for Algoma that Bill 83 is really part of a two-pronged approach to rural land uses. The honourable member also said that nuisances should not be limited to odour, noise and dust. There could be other nuisance claims. The example he used was an aircraft maybe spraying a field of grain for pests or weeds or whatever the case may be. Some of the farmers now use aircraft to sow wheat.

I think you have to take into consideration that these are going to be fairly knowledgeable people on the Farm Practices Protection Board. They could well consider whatever dust there may be or whatever droplets that may be coming down from the aircraft and on to farm property as tantamount to dust. They will be able to deal with that. But if this aircraft is spraying an insecticide or herbicide on to a farmer’s land and it happens to drift over to another farmer’s land and kills his crops -- and we are getting quite a bit of that taking place now; I am having lots of problems of that nature being brought to my attention -- the member can be assured that the person whose crop was damaged has a good case to take to the courts.

1620

It becomes almost an environmental matter in that case. Not that the board cannot take a look at it, but I have a real fear that if they are spraying at a time when the stuff is going to drift across on to a neighbour’s property and kill his crops, then they are going to be dealt with under the Pesticides Act or the Environmental Protection Act.

Farmers do not want to pollute. Farmers have made it abundantly plain to me that they do not want the right to pollute. As I say, this board will be very open-minded as to the kind of practices they will be dealing with.

The member also had some concern regarding the use of the word “normal.” I think he is placing too much emphasis on the adjective rather than on the entire definition of a “normal farm practice.” The “normal farm practice” is defined in section 1, as the members well know.

The “normal farm practice” definition does not preclude innovation in farm practices. It is ridiculous to suggest that would even be the case. The definition refers to “a practice that is conducted in a manner consistent with proper and accepted customs,” not just a reference to practices that are normally followed, and the range and type of uses are not limited. I think the member’s fears there are unfounded when it comes to the definition of a “normal farm practice”; he must get his mind off the adjective “normal” and put his mind on the definition we have in the definition section of the act.

I was making notes as members were talking. I have dealt with the need for proper land use planning. The member for Algoma would like to see very rigid legislation on this. Let me put this situation to the member.

He represents areas like Blind River, Thessalon and Hornepayne. Let’s say -- and I know this is not the fact -- that these small urban areas are all located on good farm land, and Thessalon and Blind River -- just as Exeter and Goderich are doing in my area -- are crying out for light industry, are crying out for more industry. We all know that if we are going to attract industry, we are going to attract more people, which means they are going to have to take land out of production because there is nothing but good land around there. I am assuming that. That is the situation we have in the urban areas here, in Peel and what have you.

Would he like to see legislation so rigid that the town of Thessalon or Blind River could not use any land whatsoever, could not take any of the good agriculture land out of production to use it for industry, to use it for residences, to use it for new highways if it called for new highways? No. I do not think that is what the member has in mind. Therefore, we have to be very careful before passing that kind of rigid legislation.

We think we have the solution to that problem. Members should just bear with us until they have a chance to see what our agriculture land use policy is going to look like.

They referred to bird-bangers. There is an example of how our protocols will work, the protocols we have established with the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley). We do have an understanding of whose jurisdiction this kind of a nuisance complaint falls under and will deal with it within our authority within our proper jurisdiction. Who sent me that note? Anyway, I agree with it.

The member referred to noise levels. I will run down these quickly because I think members do want a response. This goes back to our bird-bangers. The reference to 70 decibels as a noise level for bird-bangers is not in the Environmental Protection Act. The 70 decibels is in the Ministry of the Environment’s model noise bylaw. The Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food are going to be reviewing the whole issue of noise from agricultural sources, so just trust us.

Some reference was made to the investigative powers of the board. The intent is to make the board informal. We have enough of this formal stuff. The people have to go to courts and all that stiff-collared stuff and all the rest of it. I look at the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) as I am talking. But the intent is to make this board hearing as informal as possible. We want to encourage the complainant and the farmer to bring the matter to the board and to present their respective cases. This allows for quicker, less costly hearings.

The bill does allow the board to inquire into matters. If you look at clause 4(l)(b), you will see that the bill does allow the board to inquire into matters. But initially, I would hope that the board would not have to use this power.

The spelling of “silviculture” -- we have already noted that. It will be changed. I have already dealt with reasonable versus normal farm practices. All these notes are coming, telling me I have to get along here. We have to speed the process up.

I think probably I have responded to a lot of the concerns that were raised by the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. On intervener funding, there is no provision for such funding. The intent is for informal, less costly hearings to appear before the board so there should not be a need for that kind of funding. It should not cost very much money.

Regarding notices on title or a cloud on title, as you referred to, they are not effective in limiting complaints being raised by land owners. In fact, the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations has put a moratorium on putting clouds on title. The members would not want me to do something that my colleague has put an end to. I am sure of that. We do not see this as the proper way to protect farm interests. It gives a false sense of security.

The member talked about the number of board members. The bill sets minimums. If I want, I can put 12 members on the board. It just says “a minimum of five.” I have taken note of what the member has said and I appreciate his comments. I can appoint more than five members. A panel of a board hearing a case could be more than two, especially if the matter is somewhat complex.

Mr. Villeneuve: Are there going to be farmers there?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Trust me. Leave that up to me. We have taken note of what the member believes the composition of the board should be.

Look, I had a whole lot of things I wanted to say but it is being sent to committee and I guess we will all have our second kick at the can at this thing, but we think we have a heck of a good bill. I would like to have been able to think that we could pass it and have it in the form of legislation, so that we could all go home and tell our farmers they now have the legislation they have been waiting a long time for.

With that, I will conclude my remarks.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Did I hear a “nay” somewhere here?

Mr. Wildman: I said “nay,” but my voice is not very well.

1630

The Acting Speaker: Oh, your voice is not very well. That having been said, all those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered for standing committee on resources development.

House in committee of the whole.

FARM IMPLEMENTS ACT (CONTINUED)

Consideration of Bill 78, An Act respecting the Sale of Farm Implements.

Mr. Chairman: At this point, I would like to make a list of the amendments that will be proposed and to which sections. The member for Algoma.

Mr. Wildman: I have an amendment to subsection 3(4), section 10, section 13 and clause 35(a).

Mr. Chairman: Do other members have any amendments?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I have amendments for subsections 3(1) and 3(3), subsection 6(1), subsections 8(3) and 8(4), subsection 24(1), clause 27(i) and clause 35(p), unless I think of more in the meantime.

Mr. Chairman: Would other members like to modify other sections? Is the list that we have complete? Are we ready to look at these? Shall sections 1 and 2 carry?

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.

Section 3:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Riddell moves that subsection 3(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(1) A dealer shall not sell or offer for sale a new farm implement unless it was obtained by the dealer from a distributor or another dealer registered under this act.”

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Briefly, the technical amendment eliminates the need for a 90-day transition period and covers a dealer-to-dealer sale of equipment. The ministry will publicize the act in sufficient time to ensure the industry is aware of its requirements.

Mr. Wildman: We have no objection to the amendment and will support it if the minister can assure us that the dealers will have sufficient time to adjust. He said the ministry will be advertising. We see nothing wrong with this amendment.

Mr. Villeneuve: We have no objection to this amendment either. I think we will be supporting it and I believe it is a clarification.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Riddell moves that subsection 3(3) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(3) A distributor shall not sell a new farm implement to any person except a dealer or another distributor registered under this act.”

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I am making this amendment for the same reason I made the former one.

Mr. Wildman: We support the amendment.

Mr. Villeneuve: I would like some clarification from the minister. We have many small equipment manufacturers. I have a letter from one here, Frey Livestock Equipment from Moorefield. The question here, as posed by Keith Reid, is that the wording of this section forbids the distributor to sell to anyone other than a dealer. Being an equipment manufacturer, probably an equipment distributor and an equipment dealer, can a short-line manufacturer, a manufacturer of equipment anywhere, be the manufacturer, distributor and dealer?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: To go back to subsection 3(1), “a dealer shall not sell or offer for sale a new farm implement unless it was obtained by the dealer from a distributor registered under this act,” or another dealer, so the answer to the member is yes.

Mr. Villeneuve: Could the minister spell out the fees that would be involved here for both a producer or a manufacturer. Would he have to be a distributor and dealer, or could he simply be a manufacturer with the right to retail his equipment? Could the minister just spell that out, please.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Is the member asking for the registration fee? If it is a combination of the two, it is $300. It is not a case of charging $200 plus the $300, for $500 if he is operating both. That is what we are looking at. Apparently it is all set in the regulation. What we are looking at is $200, or if you are operating both as a manufacturer and distributor, $300, but these have to be set by regulation. Those are what we are looking at.

Mr. Wildman: That is the problem. We have some real concern about the approach of saying it has to be set by regulation. I recognize you cannot have everything in the act, but in his remarks in closing debate on the previous bill in second reading, the minister said we should trust him. I have no reason to distrust him, but I do not think it is healthy to simply say everything is going to be set by regulation. We want to know what the regulation is going to say.

Mr. Villeneuve: I would be prepared to support this amendment if I have the minister’s commitment that, indeed, short-line manufacturers can also retail, provided that the regulation covers it. Yes, I trust the minister. I just want his word here today that there will be no problem, that this can indeed occur.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I think I gave the word.

Motion agreed to.

1640

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Wildman moves that section 3 be amended to replace the following words in subsection 4, “contain such information as may be prescribed,” with “be subject to sections 23 through 30 and shall be a requirement of registration under the act.”

Mr. Wildman: It might be argued that obviously, if the bill passes, any agreement will indeed be subject to the sections of the act. However, what I am suggesting here is that an agreement between a distributor and a dealer should be drawn up or drafted in this way in order for the registration to be approved; in other words, for the agreement to be drafted prior to the registration and to be one of the requirements of registration.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I do not believe I can accept this amendment. I just want to indicate to the honourable member proposing the amendment that it already is a requirement, because it already says in subsection 23(2) that sections 24 to 30 apply to an agreement. The honourable member’s amendment would widen the bill to include any purchase or sale of farm equipment, whether the purchase was a poor decision or not.

I do not think we want to be passing legislation making management decisions for business people. It really does not make any sense to have to have an agreement before you can be registered as a dealer-distributor in the act, so I do not see a great deal of merit in what the member is proposing and I have to reject it.

Mr. Wildman: I regret the minister’s response, particularly since subsection 23(2) refers to “an agreement that is in effect on or after the day this act comes into force.” It does not refer to new agreements for new distributors and dealers.

I regret the minister has taken the position that he does not want to interfere in this way in management decisions. I see this as a way of trying to protect the dealer, to ensure that all agreements that are drawn up can be drawn up in this way and that this be a requirement for registration. I stand by my amendment. I think it would be helpful.

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

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.

Section 6:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Riddell moves that subsection 6(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(1) No person shall carry on the business of a dealer or distributor unless the person is registered under this act.”

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Once again, this minor amendment eliminates the need to have a 90-day transition period.

Mr. Wildman: Just to show you, Mr. Chairman, how much more willing I am to agree with the other side than is the minister, I support the amendment.

Mr. Villeneuve: My only concern is when the minister says “no person.” Does that mean there is absolutely no opting out? That is what I gather. You could be a corporate entity, you could be whatever, but there is no opting out. Is that right?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: We can find that at the back of the bill someplace. I cannot lay my hands on the opting-out clause, but the member is right.

Mr. Wildman: Legally, under the act, the term “a person” would include a corporate body.

Motion agreed to.

Section 6, as amended, agreed to.

Section 7 agreed to.

Section 8:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Riddell moves that subsection 8(3) and 8(4) of the bill be amended by striking out “director” wherever it occurs and inserting in lieu thereof “chairperson.”

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The minor change is self-explanatory. It complies with the requirements of the legislative counsel.

Mr. Wildman: As someone whose last name ends “man,” I object to this.

Mr. Chairman: How wild.

Mr. Wildman: I just do not want to have someone start to refer to me in this House as “Wildperson.”

Mr. Chairman: Rest assured that will not happen.

Motion agreed to.

Section 8, as amended, agreed to.

Section 9 agreed to.

Section 10:

Mr. Chairman: The member for Algoma had an amendment.

Mr. Wildman: I want to make some additions to section 10.

Mr. Chairman: Fair enough.

Mr. Wildman moves that section 10 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsections:

“(5) Before entering into a sale agreement, the dealer shall ensure that the date of manufacture of the new farm implement is clearly marked or stamped on the farm implement in a conspicuous place.

“(6) A sale agreement shall set out the date that the new farm implement was manufactured.”

Mr. Wildman: The purpose of the amendment is so that on the sale everyone is clear of the actual date of manufacture, the age of the equipment, so that if there are problems, the agreement will make clear the age of the piece of machinery. Subsequently, of course, when the machinery is sold as a used piece of machinery, a purchaser at that time will know how old the machine is. It is just to make it more clear and evident to all concerned.

1650

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I would really like to be able to co-operate once in a while with my friend the member for Algoma but, from the legal advice that I am given, it is simply unenforceable. Some of this equipment comes from all over the world and provincial law cannot enforce it. Once again, dealing with subsection 6 of the honourable member’s amendment, it is impractical and unenforceable, since most farm implements are not manufactured in Ontario. I would not be able to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Section 10 agreed to.

Sections 11 and 12 agreed to.

Section 13:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Wildman moves that section 13 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsections:

“(2) No dealer shall sell a new or used farm implement unless,

“(a) the farm implement meets such safety requirements and performance standards as may be prescribed; and

“(b) on the delivery of the farm implement to the purchaser, the dealer gives to the purchaser a safety standards certificate indicating that the requirements and standards referred to in clause (a) have been met.

“(3) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations,

“(a) prescribing safety requirements and performance standards for the sale of new or used farm implements by dealers;

“(b) prescribing the form and content of safety standards certificates; and

“(c) prescribing inspection procedures to be followed by the dealer.”

Mr. Wildman: In the debate on second reading, I indicated that I was concerned about requiring safety certification on the sale of a new or used implement. While earlier in this debate I objected to setting things out by regulation, what I am suggesting here is that the Lieutenant Governor in Council should indeed be able to decide by regulation the safety requirements and the standards that should be met in fulfilling this section.

As I indicated at second reading, I believe that if we can have laws in this province that require safety certification for automobiles and trucks that are used on public thoroughfares, we should indeed be requiring the same thing for equipment such as tractors and combines that are not only used on private property and on farm land but also, from time to time, travel on public thoroughfares. We already have regulations, of course, under the Highway Traffic Act for how those types of farm machinery are to be identified when they are travelling on a public thoroughfare.

I think that we should be ensuring as much safety as possible. It has been suggested that other sections of the bill as presented meet these requirements; I do not believe they do adequately. I think that all people, dealers and purchasers, would agree that we should be doing everything possible to limit the number of accidents on the farm, not just related to people who are themselves working on the farm but to people who are watching or in the same area, particularly children. One of the ways to do that is to ensure that the farm implements we use are indeed safe when they are purchased.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I really believe that the amendments proposed by the honourable member are provided for in the regulation clauses 35(o), (p) and (q), but knowing the lack of faith that the honourable member has in regulations, I would be prepared to move an amendment when we come to section 31 of the bill.

What I would like to do now is send over a copy of this amendment to both the member for Algoma and the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry to see if indeed this addresses the safety features that they seem to be concerned about.

Mr. Chairman: You also have copies for ourselves?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I will see that you get one, but that does not come until section 31 of the bill.

Mr. Chairman: In that case, I have it.

Mr. Wildman: If it is in order, I was going to suggest that we stand down this section until we get to section 31. If the amendment proposed by the minister to section 31 fulfils the requirement, then we could deal with it at that time.

Mr. Chairman: Fair enough.

Mr. Wildman: I do want to respond to the minister’s comment about me having so little faith in him. I have always considered him a great exponent of his party’s position, which is not necessarily mine.

Mr. Chairman: Is there agreement among the members for the member for Algoma’s suggestion?

Agreed to.

Sections 14 to 23, inclusive, agreed to.

Section 24:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Riddell moves that subsection 24(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(1) Within 90 days after an agreement has expired or is terminated, a dealer may by written notice require the distributor to repurchase all or any new farm implements and new parts supplied by the distributor under the agreement.”

Hon. Mr. Riddell: This is a substantive change that reflects my commitment to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and to the Ontario Retail Farm Equipment Dealers’ Association. It permits a dealer to require a distributor to buy back equipment where either party terminates their agreement.

Mr. Wildman: I appreciate the minister attempting to deal with the issue of buyback, which has been a matter of some controversy over the last few weeks. I understand that the minister met yesterday with the members of the executive of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture as well as ORFEDA and that the participants in the meeting were satisfied that the minister was going to respond in some way or other to the problems related to the buyback. I am happy we are responding in that way. For those reasons I will, on behalf of my party, support the amendment.

Mr. Villeneuve: I too am in full agreement with the amendment. I believe it firms up what had been a much looser arrangement. Also, after discussion with ORFEDA and the federation of agriculture, I concur with the amendment to subsection 24(1) and will be voting in that fashion.

Motion agreed to.

Section 24, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 25 and 26 agreed to.

1700

Section 27:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Riddell moves that clause 27(i) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(i) a new farm implement that was shipped to the dealer more than thirty-six months before the distributor receives the notice of repurchase.”

Hon. Mr. Riddell: This amendment is necessary as a result of the changes in subsection 24(1). It widens the scope of determination. Also, it changes the number 36 to be spelled out as “thirty-six.”

Mr. Wildman: Could the minister explain a little further why he is eliminating the last clause, “unless the agreement is terminated by the distributor or the dealer has ceased to be a dealer.” Is it his view that this is covered by the change to section 24?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: That is my view and that is why I made reference to that section.

Motion agreed to.

Section 27, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 28 to 30, inclusive, agreed to.

Section 31:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Riddell moves that section 31 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(3) No dealer shall sell or offer for sale a farm implement

“(a) unless the farm implement complies with the prescribed safety standards; and

“(b) unless the dealer provides the purchaser with a statement that indicates compliance with the prescribed safety standards.”

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I am hoping this addresses the concerns expressed by the member for Algoma when he made his amendment. This amendment requires a dealer to comply with the safety standards in the regulations and to indicate that he or she has done so or face a fine under section 34.

Mr. Wildman: I appreciate the amendment proposed by the minister. In my view, on reading this, it does meet the concerns I was proposing in my amendment to section 13. For that reason, I will support the amendment to section 31 and withdraw my amendment to section 13.

Motion agreed to.

Section 31, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: We shall go back to section 13.

Section 13:

Mr. Wildman: I withdraw my amendment to section 13, as the concerns about safety requirements and the certification of safety are met in the amendment we have just passed to section 31.

Section 13 agreed to.

Sections 32 to 34, inclusive, agreed to.

Section 35:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Wildman moves that section 35 be amended by striking clause (a).

Mr. Wildman: The reason I have moved this amendment is simply the concerns I expressed at second reading regarding the exemption level. To be very frank, I did not see how I could meet my concerns on the exemption levels being set by regulation by dealing with the bill except by striking clause (a). It is for those reasons that I have moved this amendment.

In doing this, I am not attempting to remove all the possibility of any flexibility on the part of the people who are administering this act, but I am very upset and unhappy about the fact that the original, agreed dollar levels of exemption appear to be going to be different in the regulations than was the consensus arrived at by the Ontario Retail Farm Equipment Dealers’ Association, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the ministry.

It has been stated that a new consensus was arrived at yesterday. That may be, but there are no figures in here about the levels, so the only way I see to deal with it is by striking this subsection.

I somehow doubt that the minister will accept it, but maybe by moving this amendment it will highlight our concerns about the regulations with regard to exemptions.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I know my honourable friend likes to spell everything out in legislation. He likes the rigidity. But he also has to realize that as time goes on, things change. The costs of doing things change, and the prices you pay for things change. I would not want to put into legislation, say, what a registration fee would be, because I know full well that next year I will likely have to come back and amend the legislation, and the year after that, I will likely have to come back and amend the legislation again. So we do leave some flexibility for making these changes by way of regulation.

I understand from those who know better than I about drafting legislation and what have you that clause 35(a) is a standard type of clause in most legislation. In other words, it acts as an escape valve in certain situations. Let me use an example. If a government purchases equipment, it can decide if it wishes to be subject to the act. That is just one example that I use. Therefore, I would not be able to accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Riddell moves that clause 35(p) of the bill be amended by inserting, after “prescribing” in the first line, the word “safety.”

Hon. Mr. Riddell: This change simply clarifies the standards to be prescribed.

Mr. Wildman: I support the amendment. Again, I think it responds to the concerns that were raised in second reading regarding the spelling out in the bill of concerns about safety standards. I appreciate the fact that the minister has responded by introducing this amendment. We will support it.

1710

Mr. Villeneuve: We will also support this amendment. Safety is a very important factor, not only safety for vehicular traffic along the roads but also safety for the operator and those people who work around this equipment. I think it is a most important aspect. Sometimes when we think of safety we simply think of the aspect of safety on a highway. but we have to recall that much of this farm equipment is very dangerous. The safety of the operator and of those people who work around this equipment is most important. We will certainly be supporting this amendment.

Motion agreed to.

Section 35, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 36 and 37 agreed to.

Bill 83, as amended, ordered to be reported.

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

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT / LOI MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA MUNICIPALITÉ DE LA COMMUNAUTÉ URBAINE DE TORONTO

Hon. Mr. Ward moved second reading of Bill 160, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

L’hon. M. Ward: Le projet de loi 160 modifiera la Loi sur la municipalité de la communauté urbaine de Toronto, laquelle prévoit l’établissement, a compter du 1^er décembre de cette année, du Conseil des écoles françaises de la communauté urbaine de Toronto.

The French-language council will become responsible for operating all French-language public elementary and secondary schools in Metro, effective January 1, 1989. These schools now have 1,648 students and 90 French-as-a-first-language teachers.

This bill will implement changes that were recommended by a 22-member implementation task force formed in January 1987 to oversee the implementation of this new council, which on January 1, 1989, effectively becomes Metropolitan Toronto’s seventh partner in the federation of area boards of education.

The existing legislation applies only to staff hired before October 1, 1986, and does not provide for transfer procedures or employment security guarantees.

This bill includes provisions for the smooth transfer of staff to the council from existing boards, employment security provisions and the right to refuse transfer and covers all staff hired up until December of this year.

The Acting Speaker: Are there any questions or comments? Are there others who wish to participate in the debate? The member for Riverdale.

M. Reville: Monsieur le Président, nous disons oui.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Are there others who wish to participate in the debate? The member for Markham.

M. Cousens: Monsieur le Président, c’est un plaisir pour moi de profiter de cette occasion pour parler en français.

Hon. Mr. Ward: I’m glad you can.

Mr. Cousens: I wish I could do it better. I used to speak some French. To me it is an important language that we have all got to have a better understanding of, and if I could do it as well as my children do right now, I know I would be able to be as fluent as or more fluent than even the minister, as well as some of my friends.

There are a number of comments that I would like to make, and I begin by saying that our party will support the bill and support the principle of it, so there is no doubt that we are cognizant of the need to give this opportunity for teachers who are going to be part of this new system the chance to have protection, and that is really what it is going to provide for them.

I want to raise a few other questions around the whole issue that has to do with the provincial support for the education system in Ontario. I guess there is a question that would come out of what I am asking, and it has to do with the fear that many people are having across the province that the public system is somehow being undermined. It is a pervasive fear that they have, because what they are seeing is that, you know, after Bill 30 was passed, the separate school system became recognized and we began to do things there, as maybe we should have done a long time ago. Once that started to happen, one of the guarantees that was given by the government at that time, and even by a Bill Davis, back on June 12, 1984 or 1985, one of the things that he said at that time was that it would never really cause any deterioration to take place in the public system.

I am sensing that more and more people within the province are saying that the public system is not getting the support from the government that it should. There are different ways in which they are seeing that, and maybe these are just the worries that are coming out in which the funding, for instance, by the province in the formulas for the local boards of education is causing the local ratepayers to pay an increasing part of the costs. It was certainly a promise that this government made that it would reduce the local ratepayers’ share and increase the provincial share of the costs of education.

There is fear that the public system might be undermined with the change in the way subsidies are given through the tax base as a whole, the industrial and commercial tax base, and whether or not that is going to change in the near future.

I do not know whether or not the minister is going have to start looking at what is going to happen 10 years down the way. What we are doing now is responding in an ad hoc way to this need and to other needs. What is his long-term plan for education in Ontario? Is there going to be a time when he can say that it is the number one priority of the government and truly mean it?

That would mean that the finances of the government, the attention by the government, the consistency of the government are going to be directed to making sure that education is a fundamental priority of this government and is not just going to be something where the minister gives us the words in the House and says: “Oh, yes, Mr. Speaker. Don Cousens is leading people astray by saying that we are not making it a number one priority.”

Well, it is not going to be the number one priority unless the funding is in place. It is not going to be the number one priority unless we begin to do something about providing schools and facilities for new areas when they are being built, instead of housing students by the thousands in portables. It is not going to be the number one priority if, in fact, there is a change in the funding structure for schools and education in the province that somehow again takes money away from the public system. I do not see this bill doing that, but I see this ministry as one that is not necessarily committed in action as it in words in making sure that the education in Ontario is of the highest quality.

1720

As one who has served on the York Region Board of Education and was chairman of that board, I know how important education is. In fact, one of the testimonies is when you see the interest that is taken in municipal politics as school trustees. Really, there were so many acclamations, and many of the local ratepayers are very interested in what goes on locally, but the trustees do not seem to get the same attention in the media or at all-candidates’ meetings or necessarily by the public for the important job they are doing. Someone has to have that genuine interest.

I see my very good friend the member for York Centre (Mr. Sorbara) giving me the indicator that it is time. I will not go much longer. I just want to ask the minister: What is his long-term plan for education? The words are one thing. The action to make sure that we in this province are going to continue to have the highest-quality education, I think, is important.

The fact that this Bill 160 will be approved with our support is an indication that we are going to be able to do something for French-language schools here in the Toronto and Metropolitan Toronto area. That is good. It also means that there has to be a restatement of the commitment that this government has to quality education in the public system and the separate system and that somehow they will receive the funding from this government that it should be giving them.

I do not think that is happening. The fact that the percentage of the costs for education is presently being allowed to be carried in large part, close to 60 per cent, by the local ratepayers through their local taxes is something that the minister and his government promised to change. He was not a minister at that time, but certainly the Premier (Mr. Peterson) made a commitment to do something about it.

We all know that we in this country have to do more to support all groups. I am pleased to see the action being taken here. It is working in Ottawa. It will probably be working in other places before too long.

I think the minister is very fortunate that there is the spirit around French-language services in Metropolitan Toronto. I think what we also have to recognize is that, as a ministry, it has tremendous responsibility to put certain things on the front burner. That has to do with quality of education and putting the funding where it really should count.

Is that going to say that this new board is going to be responsible for its own financing? I think that is going to be good, because then they are going to have to become far more frugal, the way the public board is and the separate board is, and maybe there are certain things there that will make them very much accountable to their own supporters for what they are doing for education.

In the meantime, let’s put the emphasis where it has to be: quality all the way.

Hon. Mr. Ward: I am delighted to have the opportunity to wrap up the debate on Bill 160, which is a bill that is establishing the Metropolitan Toronto French-Language School Council. I was very much interested in the comments of my colleague the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens), and I do not mind taking a few moments to respond to some of the very, very general statements that he had to make.

First of all, he makes a very valid point, that it is time we perhaps put aside the rhetoric and looked at specifically what has been accomplished in the field of elementary and secondary education in this province over the course of the past three years. The member is absolutely right when he makes the point that it is not just enough to state that this government views education as its highest priority. I think the facts have to speak for themselves, so I would just like to remind the member of some of those facts.

First of all, in terms of his concern over the adequacy of the facilities that are being constructed and put into place to provide educational facilities for our rapidly growing and shifting population, it is important to note that in the three years this party has had the responsibility of government funding for that very specific need, it has increased something like 400 per cent. I think that fact speaks for itself: from $60 million when his party had the responsibility of government to nearly $380 million last year alone. I invite anyone to look at the facts and not worry too much about the rhetoric.

In terms of the overall rate of support for public education in this province, it is interesting to note that in the approximately 12-year period from 1972 to about 1984, the provincial rate of support declined something like 16 per cent or 17 per cent. We put an end to that terrible skid. Over the course of the past three years, our funding for public education, through both the separate and the public school systems, has increased something like 50 per cent higher than the rate of inflation, some seven per cent last year and 6.8 per cent the year before. I think that fact speaks for itself.

In terms of new initiatives, our government put a very particular focus on the importance of elementary education in this province and interceded in a way the province had never done before in the past, that being to ensure that children of a very young age, particularly primary school students, had the opportunity for the individual attention they need. We did that by introducing our initiatives for the reduction in class sizes.

The list goes on and on, from this to some of the new initiatives in technology and technical education in this province, the fantastic increase in the number of computers in the classrooms, additional funding for textbooks and learning materials.

I can only conclude by saying that I very much welcome the remarks of the member for Markham. I invite everyone in this province not to worry about the rhetoric but to look at the facts. I am sure they will conclude, as most people in this province already have, that indeed this government places its top priority on education.

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

Mr. Cousens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I believe I am allowed to comment on the final remarks of the minister.

The Acting Speaker: The minister was concluding the debate in accordance with standing order 60.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 162, An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act.

The Acting Speaker: The next speaker is the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The star of stage, screen and television.

Mr. Philip: Well, I do appear on television when I do not appear at the Liberal caucus retreats. I am pleased that the minister recognizes that kind of talent.

On a more serious note, it is with a considerable amount of passion and a great amount of concern that I rise to speak about Bill 162, An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act.

At the present, the minister might be interested to know that my staff and I are carrying some 267 active workers’ compensation cases. We know from very personal experience the problems the workers in my riding are facing with the bureaucracy, the insensitivity and the regulatory system of the Workers’ Compensation Board.

I have been representing constituents since 1975 before the board. Indeed, that was at a time when we did not even have a budget for riding offices. Like so many of my colleagues, such as Fred Young, who was elected many years before me, I ran the riding office with volunteers and paid the rent from my own pocket.

At that time, we did not have nearly the numbers we are now facing. It seems as though the case load is getting worse. The problems are certainly not improving. While some credit can be given to the previous Conservative government for making some advances, we are still faced with a terribly bureaucratic and impossible system. I say the system is simply not working when we have so much of my time and my staff’s time taken up with dealing with one part of one ministry.

1730

Hon. Mr. Conway: Pretend it’s Sunday shopping, Ed.

Mr. Philip: I will be getting around to the Sunday shopping legislation, because it is the same kind of anti-labour legislation that this bill is about. I have met with the Union of Injured Workers and other groups and can understand why they feel so angry about this bill.

As a member of the standing committee on the Ombudsman for many years, I have dealt with the problems and frustrations the Ombudsman has had in dealing with the Workers’ Compensation Board and indeed, the unwillingness of the compensation board to even accept the completely neutral and nonpartisan decisions and investigations of the various ombudsmen over the years. Indeed, the system was so bad that Dan Hill, on taking office, decided that it would be one of his priorities and did one of his systemic studies, one of the first systemic studies that he did as our Ombudsman.

As chairman of the standing committee on public accounts, and indeed before, as a member of that committee, I have dealt with some of the problems of accountability in the Workers’ Compensation Board and the inefficiency of its management.

I recall the various debates on bills since 1975. I remember, for example, Bill 101 in 1984 and 1985. I remember that at least the government of that day, although somewhat reluctantly perhaps, did bring in some improvements, such as the expansion of the worker advisers.

If we look at this legislation, we see that the bill takes several steps backwards.

In 1983, the New Democrats, in a dissenting report on the standing committee on resources development, stated:

“The workers’ compensation system in Ontario is not working.

“Discriminatory and inconsistent in its application, petty and inadequate in its coverage, clumsy and frustrating in its administration, workers’ compensation has lost the faith and trust of the very people it should serve -- the injured workers of Ontario.”

I say to members in all honesty that this bill does very little, if anything, to change that state of affairs in any way.

This bill was introduced with the same lack of consultation with which the government introduced its anti-labour legislation, Bills 113 and 114. None of the injured workers groups, none of the legal aid clinics were directly contacted on the specific provisions that were being proposed.

I know the minister will say, as does the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith), that somehow they went out there and, in a Gestalt kind of approach, they talked to injured workers and from this they somehow invented this bill. The fact is that at least the previous Conservative government, in the case of many pieces of legislation, would go through a process of showing the general proposals to the various groups that were interested, be they industry groups or be they groups of individuals or advocates for individuals. From that and from some of those hearings they would hold, there would come a more specific kind of set of proposals. They, in turn, would be sent out to committee and there would be more dialogue and a great number of changes, and from that, some legislation, which might be inadequate at times, but at least it had gone through a process of consultation.

To his credit, Roy McMurtry, I think, can be credited with having developed or at least having been one of the ones who used that kind of approach in bringing in some legislation that was controversial and that certainly did not meet with everyone’s needs and expectations and indeed was frequently attacked, but at least they were consulted. Members of the Legislature could be part of that dialogue and make up their mind one way or the other and vote accordingly.

No such process was involved in this bill, so however you may feel about the individual provisions of the bill, you have to question the democratic process, or the lack of democratic process, the lack of consultation, that was developed.

The bill also fails in a legislative way. Many of the major changes it will bring about, if implemented, will work through various changes that will come through regulation. And thus, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) and the Premier want us to trust them. They want us to trust those same bureaucrats, those same people who have been implementing the present legislation and who have been making the decisions which have been considered by the Ombudsman, by the various advocacy groups, by the legal aid clinics and by the workers themselves, as completely insensitive at times.

Mr. Faubert: We now have guidelines.

Mr. Philip: There is a difference with guidelines that, I think, can be found in a case where perhaps there is specific literature that is available, where we can say that there is scientific research that will show that here are the kinds of things that can happen and, therefore, the regulation should implement that literature at that particular stage of the art, if you like.

Indeed, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Kanter) criticized my bill -- he was not able to persuade too many of his colleagues that it was wrong because they voted for it -- that my private member’s bill the other day was inadequate because I did not go into more specific detail as to the regulations, and I had rather left it to the scientific field and the professional journals and the ministry that had already developed standards, to spell out those standards.

That bill dealt with the care of animals. Here we are dealing with the care of people. To leave so much to the capriciousness of the regulatory system is simply inadequate, particularly when you have not, in the first place, consulted with the workers and with the workers’ advocates.

So this bill is brought about without consultation and is brought about on an act of faith. Many of the new sections are subject to enormous discretion on the part of the board. This, I suppose, serves a purpose. It allows the minister a technical out. It lets him accuse us of talking about doom and gloom when those individual decisions have not yet been made. And of course, in the long run then, it will allow any unfairness to be blamed on the board itself, rather than on the particular legislation.

But I talk to my constituents, to those 362 or 364, or whatever the latest figure is -- anyway, it is between 360 and 370 that we are now working actively on. When I talk to them, or indeed the many hundreds more whose cases I have handled over the years, they simply do not have that same faith in the bureaucracy of the Workers’ Compensation Board to come up with a regulatory process that will necessarily be in their interests. So giving more power without at least spelling out the terms of the power is simply an abrogation of responsibility.

I think we also have to look at this bill in the context in which it is presented. I was part of a committee that looked at health and safety in this province, particularly the health and safety organizations. To his credit, Elie Martel did a fabulous job at pointing out some of the inadequacies of the whole preventive system that we have in this province.

And we had thought, of course, that as a result of that and as a result of there being a new government that said there was a fresh broom to make a clean sweep of things, that there were going to be more innovative initiatives in health and safety, and that we would find a decline in the accidents in the workplace, that we would see an improvement in the environment to which workers are being exposed.

Indeed the Liberal government put it in the speech from the throne and said that on November 3, 1987, it would take steps to ensure a healthy and safe environment in the workplace. Since the Liberals formed the government, work-related accidents and fatalities have steadily climbed.

1740

The Workers’ Compensation Board statistics for 1987 confirm this disturbing trend. If you look at workers’ compensation claims, you see in 1985 426,880; in 1986, 442,080; in 1987, 469,681. In other words, there has been an increase every year over the previous year: an increase of 9.78 percent in 1985, 3.56 per cent in 1986 and 6.24 per cent in 1987. If we look at the fatalities, which are even more alarming, then we see an even greater increase. If you look at 195 fatalities in 1985, it jumps then to 220 in 1986 and 238 in 1987. We can hypothesize all we want about why this has happened, but the fact is that there is an increase in both claims and, indeed, in deaths.

While someone may hypothesize as to why claims are increasing -- and indeed some have hypothesized that when economic times get bad somehow the number of claims go up -- we, of course, are in an economic time when there is lower unemployment than in the past and yet we are finding that the claims are still increasing. The one thing that cannot be argued is that the death rate is increasing. The death rate cannot be questioned as somehow being directly related economically.

It is just like the problems in the health care sector. Rather than address the problem of health care needs of ordinary Ontarians and their families, this government has become obsessed with the cost of providing it. Rather than looking at the major part of the cost as due to their receiving inappropriate health care in a needlessly expensive manner, rather than looking at the way in which prevention or preventive health care can be used as a way of decreasing the need on the other, more expensive system, this government, in turn, tries to look at cutting back on the system itself.

I will be dealing with that in more extensive form hopefully tomorrow afternoon when we are dealing with the Ministry of Health estimates because I have, with some help from Legislative Library research, done some interesting work in terms of pulling together the actual dollar savings that can be obtained through investing in preventive health care. In the same way, this government has failed in its ability to deal with the whole problem of increasing accidents and lack of safety on the job.

If I had to describe this bill, I would say, without trying to be colloquial, that this is a bill that robs Peter to pay Paul.

Mr. Dietsch: That is not true.

Mr. Philip: One of the members says this is not true. The fact is that the minister himself admitted as much on June 20 when he noted that “The overall financial impact of these reforms will be revenue neutral. They will reallocate resources within the workers’ compensation system.” You do not need to be a member of the standing committee on public accounts to know what that means. That means basically that he is taking money from one place and reallocating it in another. My colleague the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot), who is the vice-chairman of the public accounts committee, is nodding his agreement that that is clearly what that statement means.

That pretty well sums up the significance of Bill 162. Every positive step is accompanied by a major regressive move, whether it is increased discretionary powers in the hands of the board and its functionaries, financial cutbacks, decreased access to benefits or what have you. What the minister is doing in this bill is taking from one group of injured workers in order to give a few benefits to another group. I say that is simply not what the various groups and task forces had in mind when they called for a reform of the Workers’ Compensation Board.

I just mentioned one of the task forces, the Minna-Majesky task force, which recommended that every worker have a total rehabilitation program, that is, economic, vocational, physical and psychological. When I talk to my workers, when I sit with them in their basements or in their living rooms, the major theme comes up: “We don’t want to be sitting here day after day. We don’t want those long, lonesome strolls around the block three or four times. What we want to do is be back at work in some form, maybe in an altered form, but what we need is rehabilitation.”

Among the injured workers I serve, I have more people coming to me asking for rehabilitation programs than I have people coming to me saying: “My pension is inadequate. What can you do to get me more money?” I find that a lot of the people who find themselves on worker’s compensation are people who, at least in my community, have come from other countries, have worked for maybe 20 or 30 years or sometimes even longer than that, have learned English as their second language or maybe as their third language, and have worked very hard. They are not people who are used to sitting around doing nothing, getting bored with themselves. As one fellow put it: “You know, I really hate going from in front of the fireplace to the fridge to the TV, to back in front of the fireplace to the TV to the fridge. It just is not my way of doing things. I have worked hard, in the most menial jobs, since I arrived in Canada, and I want to get back into the workforce.”

They are asking for rehabilitation. They want the self-respect which comes from working and being part of the rest of society. Bill 162 gives the board continuing power to provide rehabilitation service if it considers it appropriate. In other words, there is no statutory right of rehabilitation as has been called for by various groups, indeed, by the Minna-Majesky task force.

In this bill limits have been placed for the first time on rehabilitation assistance to a worker seeking employment for a maximum of one year. There is a limit now which did not exist before.

Finally, the worker can apply for a supplement only if he or she has already begun a rehabilitation program, whereas at the present supplements are awarded if you are waiting to start a program. Considering the amount of time it often takes for a worker to get going on one of the rehabilitation programs -- or to get slotted into one I should say; put the onus on the board rather than on the worker, who wants it as soon as possible -- it is definitely a step backward in the kinds of benefits being provided to the person who genuinely wants to get back to work and needs a rehabilitation program in order to do so.

In summary, what I am saying to the members of the House is that the constituents I represent do not want a handout, they want a hand up. They want a hand up back into the workplace and this bill is simply a regression of that direction. They want programs to help rehabilitate themselves to the point where they were before the injury or, if the injury does not facilitate that, then at least as close to that as possible.

1750

The minister will tell us that the bill will oblige employers to reinstate injured workers in their jobs. Looking more closely at this bill, however, we find that those workers who are frequently the most severely injured, many of the cases, are actually excluded -- I would say maybe half the case load I am doing, perhaps more; my assistant could give a figure on it. In other words, those who are in the construction industry, those 323,000 or so workers, will be excluded from that program. Then we can add the industries that have fewer than 20 workers -- I do not have a figure as to how many are involved in that -- and we can see that what we have is a direction of exclusion rather than inclusion.

We start off and then we say, “Yes, but all of these people are excluded from that program,” often the people who are the most severely injured, those who are in the construction industries. The employer’s obligation also lasts only two years. An employee can be terminated six months and one day after being rehired and the employer will have fulfilled his obligations under this program. The board decides if the employer has met his obligation, and there is no appeal mechanism on that.

What we have is a system, then, that fails to deal with the most critical of problems, namely, the problem of rehabilitating the worker, and the problem of getting that worker back to work as soon as possible.

No one has been more critical of the old meat chart formula for awarding pensions than I and my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, but what the government of the Minister of Labour and the Premier are doing under this legislation does not help the situation very much.

Under the current pension program, while current pensions under the meat chart are totally inadequate they are often, generous I guess would be the word -- although the workers do not consider them generous -- in comparison to the new lump sum benefits. Under the new calculations, the pensions granted are much smaller than at present and the principle of a disability for life is destroyed since pensions under $10,000 will be given out immediately as a lump sum.

The board appoints the practitioner who will conduct the assessments. You only have to talk to injured workers and their physicians to ask the opinion of some of those so-called board assessments and their doctors.

What I am saying is that the new benefits under this program will actually mean a loss for many injured workers. The bill says that if a worker gets a pension or is totally disabled for 12 consecutive months, he or she is entitled to a benefit, but the amount payable is 90 per cent of the difference between what the worker earned before the accident and what the board believes he or she is capable of earning after the accident.

This is what is called “deeming” and it is already happening at the board with pension settlements. In other words, the board deems a worker capable of performing a job based on personal characteristics, education, personality, etc. and then allocates a phantom job, whether that person is able to find that particular phantom job or not.

I say that what we have here is a bill that takes us several steps backwards. It is a bill that like the bills introduced by the Solicitor General and the Minister of Labour, are antilabour and anti-worker. It is clearly legislation the workers had a right to be upset about when they were before this Legislature and expressed, perhaps with considerable emotion, to the minister exactly what they thought about this legislation. It is legislation that unlike some previous legislation we have had, does not take a little step forward, but neutralizes a lot. It takes money out of the pockets of one injured worker to put into the pockets of another.

I say to the minister that this kind of legislation should not be passed. It is a sham. It is like so much of what this government has done in the last few months. The government promises one thing, as it did in Sunday shopping during the election, and then does exactly the opposite six months later when it gets into office.

I find this significant. Coming from a west Metro riding, I am hearing this more and more from my constituents and indeed from their relatives who live in various ridings in the west end of Metro. They say they had hoped that with Mr. Sorbara as Minister of Labour and in cabinet we would see some improvements.

What we have seen since this government has had a majority is antilabour legislation. We have seen Bill 113 and Bill 114, which is clearly antilabour legislation. It is regressive legislation. You only have to walk into Ferlisi’s grocery store and talk to any of the workers there, or Valencia’s grocery store and ask any of the workers there or ask any of their families where this government is. They are saying, “My goodness, the Tories may have been bad but this government with Sorbara and the present Solicitor General is a lot worse.”

I find it significant that both of the bills that are creating the most controversy in this House are bills that are basically opposed by the workers in this province. They are bills that are opposed by the unions in this province. This government is more reactionary, more Tory, than the Tories ever were and this bill does not deserve to pass second reading.

On motion by Mr. Pouliot, the debate was adjourned.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.

16 novembre 1988