role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

December 1, 1981

32nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

LIQUID WASTE DISPOSAL

INDUSTRIAL MINERALS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

ODOMETER ROLLBACKS

ASSISTANCE TO BEEF PRODUCERS

ORAL QUESTIONS

LIQUID WASTE DISPOSAL

CONVERSION TO CONDOMINIUMS

BILD PROGRAM

ALLEGATIONS OF POLICE BRUTALITY

POLITICAL ESPIONAGE

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

USER FEES

CHARGES AGAINST JUDGES

ASSISTANCE TO BEEF PRODUCERS

COBEX REMOVAL

ORGANIZED CRIME INFORMER

ASSISTANCE TO BEEF PRODUCERS

USE OF TIME IN QUESTION PERIOD

PETITIONS

GO TRANSIT SERVICE

COBEX REMOVAL

MOTION

ESTIMATES

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

ELECTION FINANCES REFORM AMENDMENT ACT

MOTION TO SUSPEND NORMAL BUSINESS

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

BANKFIELD CONSOLIDATED MINES LIMITED ACT

BURFORD LIONS CLUB ACT

JACINTA INVESTMENTS LIMITED ACT

TOWNSHIP OF NORTH DORCHESTER ACT

CITY OF KANATA ACT

TOWN OF BRACEBRIDGE ACT

TOWN OF GRAVENHURST ACT

TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE ACT

TOWNSHIP OF CHANDOS ACT

TORDOM CORPORATION CONTINUATION AUTHORIZATION ACT

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE (CONTINUED)

The House met at 2:02 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

LIQUID WASTE DISPOSAL

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the honourable members of measures I am taking to ensure that liquid industrial wastes in this province will be disposed of with even greater safety and efficiency.

Mr. Eakins: Let the record show there is not an NDP member in the House.

Hon. Mr. Norton: In a recent decision the divisional court found that the Ridge landfill site in Harwich township is properly certified by my ministry to accept domestic and other nonhazardous wastes, but because the original application for certification in 1970 did not specify liquid industrial wastes it was the finding of the court that the site is not certified to accept these wastes.

Mr. R.F. Johnston: We're here.

Mr. Bradley: There's all your supporters, Richard -- right there.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: He is all alone.

Mr. Speaker: Will the Minister of the Environment please proceed?

Hon. Mr. Norton: As I have previously indicated I am concerned about this decision, especially the possibility that other sites now accepting liquid industrial wastes may be affected if this decision is applied as a precedent. The action I am announcing today will provide extra measures to ensure the operation of these landfill sites will continue with even greater security and environmental safeguards.

While the circumstances of their certification and operation are not identical to those of the Ridge landfill site, I am convinced we cannot afford to risk the loss of facilities essential for the disposal of these liquid industrial wastes pending such time as an alternative treatment and disposal facility is established and in operation.

First, let me provide some historical background. Before 1970, municipalities, industries and, in some cases, individual operators developed their own programs and facilities for waste management and disposal. What control existed fell largely to municipalities through zoning or public health powers. In 1970 the Ontario government passed controlling legislation, first with the Waste Management Act, then with the Environmental Protection Act, 1971.

Under this legislation, and with the new regulations governing waste management, a continuing program of recording, certifying and improving or closing existing sites was undertaken, to be continued in 1972 by the newly-formed Ministry of the Environment.

This program dealt with all sites large and small across the province. Since 1972, according to ministry records, some 700 sites have been closed, most of them local dumps that were either inefficient or undesirable operations even for the municipal refuse they handled. In the process of issuing and updating certificates of approval, the remaining sites have been constantly upgraded. Where liquid industrial wastes or other special wastes were being disposed of in unsuitable locations these wastes have been diverted to environmentally sound sites.

In this process of certification, existing practices that produced no environmental problems were certified. Understandably in a certification process on this scale, some clerical oversights were almost inevitable. In the case of the Ridge landfill site liquid industrial wastes were not specified either in the original certificate of approval or in the operator's initial application for certification. There is, however, no question that the ministry and the local municipality were fully aware that this site was accepting certain liquid wastes. The practice had municipal approval before the ministry assumed responsibility.

In 1972 the law was changed to require mandatory hearings before issuing approvals for certain waste disposal sites or changes in waste disposal sites. The law requires a hearing for a change to accept liquid industrial wastes, for a change in the type or quantity of liquid industrial waste accepted and for a significant increase in the quantity of any solid waste accepted, including municipal refuse.

It is our present policy that major changes in the nature or quantities of wastes handled on a landfill site should be reviewed publicly. However, we find ourselves in a situation where retroactive application of this principle could result in closing these remaining sites to liquid waste while such a review was under way. Losing these facilities, even for an interim period, could bring much of the industrial community to a virtual halt in this province.

The environmental soundness of these sites is not at issue. They are closely monitored and supervised by our regional staff to ensure proper operation. Without approved, acceptable disposal sites for liquid wastes we risk either shutting down industries or facing the prospect of illegal dumping in fields, roads and vacant lots across this province -- perhaps both.

We now have only eight facilities to handle hauled liquid industrial wastes as compared with 23 that were operating 18 months ago. Some of these sites closed because there was no longer a local need for liquid waste disposal. On two sites, for example, the industries they served developed their own on-premises treatment facilities. Others found, after review of their operations with ministry staff, that it would be best to close their sites to liquid industrial wastes and divert the wastes to better alternative sites.

The sites that remain provide an essential industrial waste disposal service. To ensure they continue providing this service with full and proper environmental controls on their operation I am bringing them under a special regulation. Requirements to ensure even greater environmental protection to their communities will be set out under this regulation rather than under a certificate of approval, and these sites will continue their operations.

The operators of the Ridge landfill site have made a long-term decision to stop taking liquid wastes, and have filed application for a new certificate of approval based on accepting only domestic nonhazardous wastes at their site. Public hearings on that application began in September and may end in the very near future. In addition, since the court decision the company has been refusing to accept liquid industrial wastes at the site. The ministry has advised them to continue to refuse these wastes, and we are monitoring their operations to ensure compliance. Accordingly then, Ridge is not included in the terms of the regulation since there is no need.

2:10 p.m.

I would like to outline the major elements of the regulation for members as they apply to the eight remaining sites in question:

(

A) For the purpose of their continuing operation, these sites will be controlled by a comprehensive regulatory system rather than by a certificate of approval which could require retroactively a public hearing process to adjust clerical errors in documentation;

(

B) Strict operating conditions must be met by all sites.

(

C) The amounts of waste allowed will be restricted to not more than 10 per cent above current levels.

In

summary I will stress two points: First, I believe this action is required to ensure the operation of essential facilities will not be placed in jeopardy, thereby leaving us without adequate waste disposal for liquid industrial wastes. Second, I am confident this regulation will provide ongoing supervision and increased control to ensure these sites continue to handle and dispose of liquid wastes in an environmentally safe manner.

A copy of the regulation has been circulated with the copy of the text of the statement.

INDUSTRIAL MINERALS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, I have an announcement with respect to the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development. It is my pleasure to announce, this afternoon, approval by the board of my ministry's program to encourage new employment opportunities and expanded production of industrial minerals within the province.

A total of $7.7 million has been allocated over the next five years for grants of up to 25 per cent of approved capital costs to assist selected small, rural industrial minerals projects. Naturally before a grant is approved the project concerned must demonstrate its potential to meet market needs as well as its longevity and profitability criteria. Industrial mineral developments near Timmins, Matachewan, Owen Sound, Madoc, Kaladar, Kapuskasing and Perth are under consideration for grants.

Ontario is a major producer of such industrial minerals as salt, gypsum, and nepheline syenite, as well as structural materials of vital importance to our industries. In 1980, the value of production of metallic minerals and structural materials in the province was nearly $776 million. Nevertheless many other industrial minerals continue to be imported due to the lack of local availability. They are, therefore, prime candidates for domestic production and, subsequently, job creation by Ontario's minerals industry.

At present, developments of phosphate, silica, talc, potash feldspar, magnesite, mica, whiting, barite, certain building and ornamental stones, and kaolin are eligible for consideration. Additional industrial minerals will be considered if conditions warrant such action. These minerals are important raw materials for many of Ontario's industries. For instance, phosphate is vital for plant and animal growth, silica for glass, talc for paper-making and ceramic ware, magnesite for metal industry refractories, and kaolin for porcelain and paper products.

In addition, because these materials occur in abundance in our province we want to encourage their development. There are of course many other industrial minerals. Some may need a boost while others require no assistance. The incentives could be used to prepare ore bodies for mining, for the purchase of mining and processing equipment, for the construction of plant buildings and for other auxiliary structures.

Industrial mineral mines generally have vast reserves of high grade ore that permit production for many years. I believe seed money made available through BILD will encourage industrial minerals developments in Ontario that otherwise might be postponed or would not take place at all. The BILD program for industrial minerals can be most effective if grants are made available when a project reaches the financing stage.

In recent months, I have received inquiries from widely separated parts of Ontario about possible assistance for industrial mineral development. I am pleased to say the program is now in place, and I am eagerly looking forward to working with my colleagues in other ministries to ensure its implementation for the benefit of our great province.

ODOMETER ROLLBACKS

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to talk about my ministry's efforts to stamp out the number one consumer fraud in this province, odometer rollbacks.

As of today the joint investigation and enforcement team of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Auto Squad and our ministry investigators have laid more than 1,000 charges against 249 private and registered car dealers. So far 116 of those charged in Toronto have been through the courts and our conviction rate, I am pleased to report, is 100 per cent. Regionally we have lost only one case.

It is also gratifying to note that the courts are dealing harshly with these offenders, imposing fines of up to $10,000, jail sentences of up to three months and in many cases ordering full restitution. In one of our largest restitution cases a Leamington car dealer was ordered to compensate 13 consumers more than $9,500 and was fined $10,000 or three months in jail. These stiff penalties have made our job easier because they act as a deterrent to those involved in this illegal practice.

These statistics are even more impressive when one realizes the ministry's crackdown on spinners, as they are called in the trade, began only in November 1979. It was at this time the ministry recognized the problem had reached epidemic proportions and was costing unsuspecting consumers thousands of dollars every year.

A four-man odometer squad, made up of members of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force and ministry investigators, was set up to combat the problem in Metropolitan Toronto. A two-man squad was also formed to work around the province. In August 1981 three more Metropolitan officers were assigned to the squad, making a total of nine full-time investigators.

The teams are based in the ministry's main office at 555 Yonge Street, which has a computer terminal linked to the main data base in Downsview where car vehicle ownership records are stored. The ministry also has records of all the licensed car dealers in Ontario on file.

It should be pointed out that Ontario is the only jurisdiction in North America to set up a specialized odometer team, and comments from the American Car Dealers Association indicate that the problem in the United States appears to be out of control. So our efforts as leaders in this field are being closely monitored and favourably commented upon.

But this is not to say we no longer have a serious problem on our hands. It has continued to grow despite the vigilance of our ministry and the police. The problem has been worsened recently by the high cost of financing and the rising price of new cars. These factors have driven up the demand for dependable low-mileage cars, making odometer tampering an even more enticing financing prospect for unethical car sellers.

Here is one example. A Toronto woman recently bought a 1975 car with 40,000 miles on it for $3,000. The seller told her the car had belonged to her late father and she was selling it because it upset her to drive it. After the deal was closed the seller stood on the corner crying and waving goodbye. It was not until the woman had spent $2,500 in repairs that she realized she had been cheated and reported it to the odometer squad. An investigation revealed that the car had been bought back from a leasing firm and that the odometer had been rolled back 40,000 miles. A Toronto couple was later convicted and fined $5,000.

The biggest problem with detecting odometer rollbacks is the lack of physical evidence. It is almost impossible for an expert or layman to detect, even though the spinner has to take the dashboard apart to get at the odometer. A metal hook is then used to roll the numbers back.

The work takes about 15 minutes, and an expert spinner can charge up to $100 per job. The seller can then turn around and tack an extra $1,000 on to the price of the car. So you can see, Mr. Speaker, just how lucrative a proposition this can be. A used-car dealer with just 50 cars on his lot could conceivably add an extra $50,000 to his profits by rolling back odometers.

Much of an investigator's time is therefore spent tracing a car's ownership history to establish if the correct mileage was recorded each time the car was sold. My ministry is also attempting to resolve this problem by educating consumers on what to look for when they buy used cars. We have sent information materials to every newspaper, radio and television station in the province in the hope they will make their audiences aware of the problem. We have also made experts available for interviews on speaking engagements if requested by the media or interested groups.

2:20 p.m.

ASSISTANCE TO BEEF PRODUCERS

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I have a statement and I would like the pages to take copies to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Smith) and the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) or the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald).

The members will recall last June I announced an emergency payment program for slaughter cattle and stockers. The funds for this emergency assistance amount to $37 million which the government has allocated through supplementary estimates. To date we have paid out nearly $28 million to more than 5,000 Ontario producers of stockers and slaughter cattle. We expect the balance to flow by the year-end.

The remaining group in the beef sector is the cow-calf operators. These are the people who supply calves to the feedlot operators. They provide half the calves raised to market weight in Ontario. This makes them a fundamental part of our beef industry. Their contribution is even more important when current policies in other provinces are taken into account.

The other 50 per cent of calves raised to market weight in Ontario come from the west where some provinces are beginning to encourage producers to finish more calves in their province of origin. Our own cow-calf producers, therefore, may well have an even larger role in Ontario's beef industry.

To help retain our breeding herd, the government of Ontario will make payments of $40 per cow to Ontario cow-calf operators.

[Applause.]

Mr. Speaker: Will the minister proceed, please?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: This additional assistance to the beef industry will be available for cows on hand as of August 1 , 1981, provided these cows were bred in Ontario to produce a calf in 1981.

The minimum number of cows eligible is five and the owner must be a resident of Ontario. The deadline for applications is February 28, 1982. Forms are being sent to Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food extension offices today. These forms will be in our offices tomorrow morning and our representatives will be there tomorrow to help the beef producers fill out the forms and send them back to Toronto. Producers should watch their local newspapers for an announcement or call their agricultural representative for arrangements on filing an application.

There are about half a million cows eligible under this program. We expect the program to run to $20 million. Combined with the $37 million already committed to the slaughter and stocker sectors, this represents a $57 million investment in Ontario's beef industry or the equivalent of about 10 cents a pound on 1981 beef production.

I might add we are going ahead with this payment in spite of the possibility the federal government may deduct it from its stabilization payments somewhere down the road. Our producers need help now and we cannot stand by waiting for an overhaul of the federal stabilization programs.

It is Ontario's position, and it always has been, that there should be an adequate national stabilization program for national commodities and this certainly includes beef. If there were an adequate federal program, the provinces would not have to top-load or make emergency payments like the one I have just announced.

We in Ontario believe stabilization plans are an excellent idea, but we believe very strongly the time has come to overhaul these plans, to increase the support level and to speed up the payment procedures. Until that happens, individual provinces will have to make whatever arrangements they can to assist their farmers.

The government has received the report of the emergency task force established by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. It contains a number of recommendations directed at the immediate farm credit problem, plus recommendations aimed at improving the longer term framework under which our producers must operate.

To assess these recommendations and bring forward a positive course of action for the government, we are establishing a high-powered action committee. It will consist of the deputy provincial Treasurer, the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Food, the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, plus an additional active farmer yet to be named. As well, Mr. Everett Biggs, the chairman of the task force, has been invited to participate.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kitchener Wilmot.

[Applause.]

Mr. Speaker: I am sure we all like to recognize the member for Kitchener-Wilmot, but I would ask all honourable members to restrict their private conversations or else carry them on outside the chamber. It is very difficult to follow the line of questioning.

LIQUID WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. Sweeney: I would like to address a question to the Minister of the Environment in the light of his rather incredible statement today. It seems to us the minister is saying that because his former approval processes indicate clearly the clerical ineptness of his own staff -- I think those were his words -- he is now going to replace this with a regulation.

Is the minister saying today that the approval process did not work in the past so he is going to scrap it? Are people going to be able to dump whatever they want on those eight sites and the minister will cover it with a regulation? Is the minister telling us that any future sites are going to be covered by a regulation, and the citizens of the area will not have any opportunity at all to participate in an approval process? Is that what the minister is telling us?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Sweeney: In spite of his statement today, can the minister explain why the Syntath company in St. Catharines has already been given a certificate of approval to accept industrial and poisonous wastes? There was no public hearing at that time. This company now wants to move to a 12-acre site in the Thorold area. There is even the distinct possibility that this site and this company, Syntath, could be bringing in industrial waste from the United States as opposed to limiting themselves, according to the minister's statement, to domestic waste. What is the minister going to do in that situation or is he even aware of it?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am, but I believe the member's facts are incorrect. With respect to the assumptions he is making, that by way of regulation there will be any change in terms of what is acceptable at any of these sites, that is totally incorrect. In fact if he reads the regulation appended to the statement he will see the regulation will impose upon these sites very precise and very strict regulatory control. It is more extensive than anything that has ever existed before in this jurisdiction and probably in most others.

With regard to the question of clerical errors in the past, that is what I said in the statement. Back in the early part of the 1970s there were clearly some clerical oversights, largely because of the volume of work being done as the new procedures were being put into place. The reality we are faced with today is that we must act responsibly to deal with this situation. That is precisely what I am doing, acting responsibly both in terms of ensuring that the existing safe sites will be able to continue to receive the material, and also being in a position to assure the public even further that the sites are safe and will be safely operated under a very tight regulatory control.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: What the minister is really saying in his statement to the House is that there has been bungling within the Ministry of the Environment. It has taken place in the case of the Harwich dump over a period of 10 years. In all that time the Minister of the Environment of the day was not able or did not have enough concern to go and find it, but now the present minister has found it, he has suddenly discovered he has to be twice as tough in terms of the way he handles the liquid waste.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Cassidy: What kind of treatment of liquid waste is that? What kind of confidence can we put in the minister's handling of liquid waste when for three and a half years this Legislature has raised questions about liquid waste and this bungling had not been discovered?

Mr. T. P. Reid: Are the same people in charge of the program or have they been promoted?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the honourable member he can put every confidence in my handling of this situation. Regardless of what his rhetoric may indicate and his perceptions might be of things that occurred a decade ago, the fact is we are dealing with it very responsibly.

If he has a creative alternative I would certainly welcome it. It is one thing to be able to sit with his arms on his chair and be sweepingly critical, but when one has the responsibility of actually making responsible decisions to protect the environment and the members of the public that is maybe not quite so easy. But I am not going to back away from that responsibility simply because he can sit over and there and take cheap shots.

Mr. Sweeney: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The present

section 30(2) of the Environmental Protection Act reads as follows: "At least 15 days notice of the hearing shall be given to the clerk ... and such notice shall be published once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper ... where the waste disposal site is or is intended to be located ... and published at least once a week." That at least gives the public some protection, gives them some opportunity for public hearings.

Can the minister tell us, under this new regulatory process as he calls it, what protection the public is going to have in terms of knowing what the ministry is doing? Will they have the opportunity to know what is happening on those sites, and to make their own input? Will there or will there not be public hearings? How can the public be involved under the new regulatory process? It is one thing for the minister to say he is going to look after them, but let us face it, his record of doing so is not very good.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the latter part of the member's statement, of course. I think it is important he bear in mind that this regulation applies only to those existing sites that are set out in the schedule. There are eight listed in the

schedule at the back of the regulation. They are sites which, in some cases, have been in operation for well over 10 years. They are not going to be authorized to receive anything other than what they have been receiving.

This will not apply to any new sites that may be seeking to apply for a certificate of approval. It deals only with these sites. As far as information on what is going into those sites is concerned, if anyone wishes to make that inquiry we will make that information available to them.

CONVERSION TO CONDOMINIUMS

Mr. Sweeney: A question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Mr. Speaker: I want to ask the minister about the condominium movement, which is particularly prevalent in Metro. The minister will be aware that apartment buildings at 790, 800 and 840 Eglinton Avenue West in the city of Toronto have become a test case in the condominium controversy. The minister is also undoubtedly aware that city council has appealed the Ontario Municipal Board decision to the Ontario cabinet.

Given the shortage of affordable rental stock in this city, where the vacancy rate is now less than half of one per cent -- I think it is 0.3 per cent, to be exact -- what precisely does the minister believe the government of Ontario should do to give some direction to the OMB, to the city council and to the people of the city of Toronto with respect to this whole question?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the municipality very clearly has the right to accept applications for the conversion of apartment units from that use to condominiums and to review it. If its decision is to allow the conversion, then the governments of this province, and my ministry more specifically, will concur in it. If the municipality should decide not to allow the conversion, and that is its responsibility, then I say without any hesitation that the ministry has supported this position.

In the Eglinton Avenue case, if I recall correctly, the present owner has applied to the municipality with a new set of plans. The plans being submitted are in accordance with the present zoning of that property, and the municipality has issued a building permit for a new structure. In this case, the Planning Act very clearly states that a demolition permit will follow, and that is the responsibility of the municipality.

I know very well that at this moment the city is considering asking the Legislature to look at some special legislation, but I have not had an opportunity to see it yet.

Mr. Sweeney: Given the fact that hundreds and possibly thousands of people, not just in Toronto but in other municipalities as well, could lose affordable housing, whether rented or owned, through this type of conversion, and given the fact that the OMB, which has been asked to look into this, has indicated that it would like to have some statement of principle or some indication of general provincial policy, when is the minister going to develop a policy on conversion with specific guidelines to give some sense of direction to the municipalities and to the OMB on condominium conversions?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I just clearly indicated what the --

Mr. Speaker: The private conversations are taking place again. I have asked all honourable members for their co-operation. If they want to discuss private business, they should do so outside the House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I just clearly indicated to the member that the rate of conversion is the municipality's responsibility. We have very clearly indicated to the municipalities that under certain guidelines they should look at what the potential will be on a downside position if the conversion from rental to condominium is allowed to take place. I believe it is the responsibility of the municipality to assess the situation very clearly and very correctly in their communities, and they have been doing that.

I indicated in this House some weeks ago, in answer to a question very similar to this one, what the conversions happen to have been in this province from about 1976 to the current year, and the numbers have not been very substantial. Indeed, in the last two or three years the number of conversions from rental to condominium has been reduced from what they were in 1976-77, 1977-78 and so on.

I do not intend at this time to start giving direction to the Ontario Municipal Board. When appeals are made to the municipal board, I think they will judge them according to the zoning of that community and the position the municipality has taken and listen to arguments from both sides and render a decision.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to hear that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has not yet made a decision on the legislation which the city of Toronto sent him about three weeks ago.

What advice would the minister give to the 40 tenants at 230-232 Heath Street in my riding, whose apartments are going to be demolished and who are going to be evicted on February 12 or 13, in the middle of winter? What advice would the minister give those people in terms of where they can find affordable accommodation in the $300 range as opposed to building condominiums?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a new question, not a supplementary.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Sweeney: This minister is on record -- I believe it was about a month and a half ago -- as indicating the average citizen should not expect to be able to own a home in the central part of Toronto. Does he not realize that, in the absence of some specific direction or policy guidelines from himself and his ministry, what he is probably saying, and will be saying months or a couple of years from now, is that the average citizen cannot even expect to rent accommodation in the central part of Toronto? Does he not realize that is what it is leading to?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: No, I do not realize that is what it is leading to. I quoted clearly and distinctly in this House, and I will repeat it again, that the conversions we have experienced between rental and condominium over the last number of years in no way, shape or form indicate we have a mass movement away from rental to condominium, either in this city or in any other community elsewhere in Ontario; absolutely not.

The member wants to blow the thing completely out of perspective because there are one or two at the moment that are being converted. There are some rights to being a property owner in this province --

Mr. Cassidy: The minister of property owners; that's what you are. Give it to us some more.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I said there are still some rights to being a property owner in this province. The leader of the third party can sit there and yap all he wants. He knows very well a municipality has certain responsibilities to look at the situation as it relates to that municipality and to make a decision.

I have a great deal of faith in a municipal council's ability to judge the situation in its community, whether it be Etobicoke or any other community in this province, and to render a decision. They know the guidelines my ministry has supplied them, and some have put them into practice. I think there are about 20 communities in this province that have already put those guidelines into practice in determining the rights, from a municipal council's point of view, of conversion --

Mr. Cassidy: The minister of speculation; that's what you are.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The Speaker asked our members to please sit and be quiet; maybe the member would like to do the same.

Mr. Speaker: Will the minister ignore the interjections, please?

Mr. Cassidy: He's the minister of speculation.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The member should talk about speculation.

Mr. Cassidy: You're the minister of speculation; you should talk about speculation.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I say very clearly again, that is a determination of the municipalities. We have offered them the guidelines. If there is a problem with zoning which allows somebody to convert, that is, taking an apartment spot, demolishing it and putting it into an apartment complex, then the municipality has a responsibility to look at the zoning.

Mr. Grande: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I do not understand why my supplementary was ruled out of order, since I am under the distinct impression it was exactly on the question the acting leader of the Liberal Party was talking about. Will the minister answer my supplementary question?

Mr. Speaker: With all respect, it was not, in my opinion, a supplementary question but was, rather, a new question.

BILD PROGRAM

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer, who is also chairman of the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development. When the BILD program was announced back in the winter, almost a year ago, the announcement said the BILD announcements will launch Ontario upon a massive industrial expansion program aimed at creating jobs.

The Treasurer himself, in making his statement at the kickoff for BILD on January 27, said, "Our principal economic goals are to ensure growth and high job creation." He said, "Job creation is still the imperative of our economic policy." He said, "The resilience and diversity of Ontario's economy will continue to deliver strong job performance."

In view of all of those claims about strong job performance, will the Treasurer tell the House how many jobs will be created through BILD this winter as we go into what Statistics Canada has now called the most severe economic contraction in 30 years?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable member knows, we had a program that was the predecessor to BILD. It was a specific program which assisted the expansion or creation of industries in Ontario through grants and other forms of subsidized assistance. He has often criticized the employment development board and the fund it administered. He has said the grants we offered to industries to create jobs, be they in the automobile industry or elsewhere, were not productive, that they did not help. We think they did.

But at the same time we recognized that they were not part of an industrial strategy and that we should have one in this province. Therefore, we developed the BILD strategy.

The BILD strategy is building on the future on a medium- to long-term basis. The member has just heard my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) make the announcement today aimed at making this province more independent of imports of non-metallic industrial minerals. The member will see, and continue to see, more projects of that nature. That creates jobs.

I was on a mine site near Kapuskasing a week ago last Friday where money from that ministry today is creating not many jobs but a few jobs in the hope of delineating a major ore body so that we can cut down the importation of several million dollars' worth of ore a year and create jobs in that area, right in the Kapuskasing area. The member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) was with me. He has been a great promoter of that kind of thing. Right across this province one will see BILD at work doing that kind of thing.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister says that right across this province we will see BILD at work doing this sort of thing and lays claim for a project in Kapuskasing which could not have benefited under BILD since the announcement about the BILD grants for that area was made only today.

How can the Treasurer expect anyone to believe that job creation is the imperative of the government's economy policy when the contacts within the ministries for BILD, whom we have contacted diligently over the last few days, are not able to identify a single job that has yet been created as a result of the BILD program?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am not sure the words "have not been able to" are the proper ones. The member has been asking for specific jobs. I have said many times it is the member's technique to complain about long-term measures not being used when we employ short-term ones, and vice versa: whenever we get into medium- to long-term prospects, the member wants to say, "What is happening today?"

BILD is a medium- to long-term strategy. Obviously, greater benefits will accrue in future years. The member knows that. He knows that as we create the auto parts technology centre, the micro-technology centre, the biotechnology centre, the IDEA Corporation, the mining machinery advisory board, we will be creating jobs in Ontario. Surely he should have confidence, as we do, in those programs.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, since the Treasurer is talking about the long term, I wonder whether he will agree with regard to the 45 projects he announced, that for the 26 we have received answers on in terms of projected jobs, only 977 jobs are projected, outside of the Toronto convention centre, and 700 of those jobs are projected for the King Mountain project, which apparently is in trouble because of the loss of multiple-unit residential buildings tax benefits under the federal budget.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, let us look at one BILD announcement specifically. An important part of any industrial strategy is transportation. Will the member accept that? One can nod one's head. If the member accepts that, I point out that $25 million was flowed in this current year for the improvement and speeded-up construction of major arterial roads. That will create a lot of jobs; they have been created this year, for example.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the minister, since he says jobs are being created in the area of transportation.

Is the Treasurer and chairman of BILD aware of the situation at Allen Industries, a company that has been operating in Stoney Creek for 16 years and once had 1,200 jobs, where 1,000 people were working in November 1980, but which through indefinite layoffs is down to 320 workers today? These will be laid off to the tune of 100 more on December 4, all of whom will be laid off over the period from December 11 until January.

Will the Treasurer say what the BILD program will do to provide jobs for the 320 workers who will be laid off over Christmas and for the 700-odd workers who have been indefinitely laid off or have lost their jobs with that company in the course of the past year?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, unless I have lost the gist of questions the honourable member's party has asked me day after day, this is becoming a form question each day. They are asking specifically the same question but with a different corporate name.

Mr. Wildman: That's because there is one layoff after another.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am not happy about layoffs. The members opposite are not happy about layoffs.

Mr. Cassidy: But you're not doing anything.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The fact remains, all of us need to look at the economics of some of those layoffs at times. It is a shared responsibility; it is not just mine, the unions', the companies' or the federal government's. If jobs are lost to another jurisdiction, we have to see why Canadian companies are not as competitive. We have to be willing to look at the situation objectively and to protect jobs in this country.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister says we have to protect jobs in this country, and he says that I keep on asking what he calls a form question. I would like to know whether there is a form answer, beyond saying: "We have no responsibility. We are not going to create jobs this winter; why the devil would anybody ask about jobs this winter?"

In the course of the election campaign, when he stood as a candidate for the Progressive Conservative Party, the Treasurer promised a massive industrial expansion program, he promised that job creation would be the imperative of his economic policy and he promised continued strong job performance. In view of all those promises, why is it that he is now delivering the most massive program of deindustrialization that this province has ever seen?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The honourable member is now talking about the federal budget, and not about me, because that is exactly what the federal budget has been: a deindustrialization program by cutting out the confidence of the average Canadian investor and making him move his money elsewhere. That, to me, is a travesty in this country; it is something we should not be putting up with, and the honourable member knows it.

Even the members of the Liberal Party spent all weekend wringing their hands and saying, "It is time we told the feds that they are destroying Ontario's economy."

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, does the Treasurer not agree with me that one of the reasons BILD has become such a big failure is that it is a scatter-gun approach? The government has not concentrated on specific industries in specific areas. They seem to approve projects in a helter-skelter fashion. They do not seem to understand the underlying problems in the main industrial sectors of our economy.

Why does the Treasurer not reappoint the plant closure committee, which was carrying out some very good work to advise the government on which industries were being wiped off the economic map and on what courses of action he should take, so that the money he is spending in the BILD projects in a helter-skelter fashion can be zeroed in on the very important industries that are being economically ruined at this time?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleague enjoyed his speech, because that is what it was; it was not a question. The fact is that he is mixing apples and oranges. He talks about a plant closure committee in the same breath as he talks about a BILD strategy; they are not the same thing, and he knows they were not even within my ministry.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, in the case that has been raised by my colleague, is the Treasurer aware that there has been no communication between the company and the union concerning the difficulties the company is in; that workers in many cases have received only half an hour's notice of permanent layoff; that most senior workers being laid off now carry eight years' seniority and are without pension benefits and any severance pay that we are able to establish?

Is this part of the BILD program, this kind of treatment of workers when we have such a shutdown of a plant, and does it not make the case for justification and content legislation in this province?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr Speaker, that question should be directed to my colleague the Minister of Labour.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member will repeat the question.

Mr. Mackenzie: I simply asked, Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware, in the case of the Allen Industries plant, that there has been no communication between the company and the union regarding the difficulties the company is in; that some workers on permanent layoff are receiving only half an hour's notice; that eight years' seniority is the average for those being permanently laid off; and that there are no pension plans and no severance pay involved?

Is this part of the BILD program, and does it not make a case for content legislation and for justification of plant closures?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well that we have within our ministry a plant closure division and a director who, through a consultant or through his own staff, consults with industry with regard to closures to assess the justification for them.

He also knows full well that we have in this province measures with regard to termination of employment that are second to none in North America. We do not need to take second place to anybody in this country in terms of the concern we have over closures.

ALLEGATIONS OF POLICE BRUTALITY

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. I want to ask a question concerning the investigation currently under way by senior police officials into the allegations of systematic brutality by the hold-up squad here in Toronto.

I understand witnesses are very reluctant to speak to the investigating officers who have been assigned to this task. In the light of the serious problem they are running into, is this perhaps not a very good reason for giving this difficult situation a public airing under the auspices of a public hearing?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am sorry; under the auspices of the new public complaints commissioner? Is that the last part of the member's question?

Mr. Elston: A public inquiry is what I was asking for.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The information I have, while probably not complete, Mr. Speaker, is that the potential witnesses, the complainants, were co-operating with the police. This information was given to me a week or so ago by Mr. Linden in his capacity as our new public complaints commissioner.

Mr. Linden is monitoring the investigation. As a matter of fact, I will be meeting with him later today, and I will certainly bring the member's concerns to his attention; but I think at this time it is rather premature to suggest that a public inquiry would be in anybody's interest.

Mr. Elston: If the Solicitor General is suggesting that a public inquiry may become non-effectual because the inquiry itself will be rerouted through the provisions of Bill 68, can he guarantee to the members of this House that any hearings conducted as a result of the determinations of the public complaints commissioner will be made in a public forum? In addition to that, can he tell us when he proposes to move ahead with having royal assent to the bill that was passed here just recently?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I know Mr. Linden wanted to get some regulations drafted before royal assent was sought, and that is the reason for the delay; but obviously it is important that we proceed with royal assent as soon as possible. One of the purposes of the meeting this afternoon is to determine just how quickly that could be done.

As the member knows, under our legislation the public complaints commissioner does have a discretion with respect to ordering a hearing, and any hearing that is ordered will certainly be public if he is of the view that such a hearing should be held.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, will the Solicitor General lend the offices of Mr. Linden or of his own ministry to any efforts made by Amnesty International to hold an inquiry of their liking into these allegations as well?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, Amnesty International is a very credible, important organization; there is no question about that. But as far as I am concerned, this is a matter that should be looked after locally. And I think it is a pretty good testing ground for the efficacy of Bill 68; obviously, I would like to give that procedure an opportunity to work.

3 p.m.

POLITICAL ESPIONAGE

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Premier (Mr. Davis), I have a question for the Attorney General. Has the Attorney General had an opportunity to read The Good Fight, the political memoirs of David Lewis? More particularly, is he aware of the revelations contained in

chapter 12 on the Gestapo affair of 1945?

Is the Attorney General aware, for example, that documentation is now available, from the Drew and the Gladstone Murray papers in the Public Archives of Canada, that Drew not only misled the people of Ontario during the 1945 election campaign but also perjured himself in his testimony before the LeBel royal commission to the effect that he was unaware of the existence and operation of this political espionage unit?

What is the Attorney General or his government going to do to correct the official record of this Legislature now that the truth of the so-called Gestapo affair is known?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, we all have great respect for the late David Lewis; I am looking forward personally to reading his autobiography. But with the greatest respect to a very distinguished Canadian, I do not think, given the fact that none of the people who were directly involved is still with us, that these allegations are really an appropriate foundation on which to confirm or refute a very serious allegation.

Mr.

MacDonald: Since it is now known, and documented in his personal papers deposited in the public archives of the nation, that the man who launched the nearly 40-year hegemony of the Tory party in Ontario not only tolerated the existence and operation of a publicly financed political espionage unit within the Ontario Provincial Police, which spied on the official opposition -- surely an outrageous activity in a free country -- but also used the unit indirectly, through Gladstone Murray and his political propaganda, misled the people of Ontario by denying any knowledge of this political espionage in the 1945 election, which established the first majority government of the Tories, and finally perjured himself in testimony before the royal commission, thereby achieving judicial exoneration of his complicity --

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr. MacDonald: In view of all that, does the Attorney General not feel that the good name of Ontario should be restored as much as possible by clearing the record once and for all?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, my recollection of that period is simply that there was a royal commission and that it made it clear that the allegations which were made at that time were without foundation. The honourable member's predecessors paid probably what was an appropriate political price. There may be others who have subsequently disagreed with that, but I think we may be showing disrespect to a number of distinguished people who have gone to their great reward by attempting to turn this into a political football at this time.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Gordon: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Labour aware that an employee at Inco's nickel refinery was subjected to excessive levels of nickel carbonyl at the end of October, that the employee was initially refused testing for nickel carbonyl poisoning by company personnel and had to be rushed to hospital in the first week of November suffering from nickel carbonyl poisoning, and that he has not been able to return to work since?

Will the minister bring the full force of the Occupational Health and Safety Act to bear on Inco to see that Inco begins to take seriously the occupational health and safety of the workers in the nickel refinery?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, the member was good enough to mention to me minutes before the House assembled that he wanted to raise this issue, and I thank him for that.

My only personal experience with the nickel carbonyl plant was in visiting it in 1978. It is an up-to-date, modern plant built in 1970 or so, with automatic sampling and automatic warning devices built in. I have always heard, both from trade union representatives and from the company, that it was of the highest quality and standard.

But if the allegations the member is making about carbonyl intoxication or poisoning have indeed been made, he has my commitment that an inspector and occupational health branch physician, along with any other staff that may be required, will carry out a full investigation of that allegation. If there are compensation aspects involved, they too will be followed up very carefully.

USER FEES

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. I wonder if the minister could clear up this confusion over user fees.

I have a constituent from Meaford who came to my office last Friday who thinks user fees are already here. Last Wednesday, he received a hospital bill for $10,000. His wife, who is 68 years old, has been in the hospital for one year and four months. She has had her leg amputated and is confined to a wheelchair, has had eight strokes within the last three years and has arthritis in her arms and hands. Her application for extended nursing home care has been approved. On August 1, this gentleman, who is also 68 years old, was told his wife was discharged from the hospital.

He immediately contacted every nursing home within 40 miles around and found no beds available. He then contacted his lawyer who told him to keep looking but not to take her out of the hospital. Last Wednesday, November 25, he received a bill from the hospital for $10,000.

Are user fees already here? What is this man supposed to do with his wife, who is approved for extended care, and what is he supposed to do with the $10,000 bill?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, obviously I do not make a snap assessment of an individual case. If the member would like to give me the particulars, I can have it looked into.

As regards the basic question, there is no confusion. There are some user fees already in existence for nursing homes and for chronic care, but we do not have user fees for required hospitalization. It may well be that there is some dispute between the physician and the hospital, and maybe the patient, as to whether the patient should leave the hospital. If the physician has in fact discharged the person, then it is no longer an insured service.

Mr. McKessock: What steps is the minister taking to provide nursing home beds so that this type of thing will not happen? Is the minister aware that Meaford nursing home has an extra 10 beds in its modern home for which it has never been able to obtain a licence?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am aware, if it is the one I am thinking of, that when they built the facility they overbuilt beyond the limits of their licence in the hope that some time in the future they would be given approval.

Mr. Eakins: The need is there now.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We have been adding nursing home beds, which the member for Victoria-Haliburton very well knows, where the local need is demonstrated and where I have funds available in my budget. In fact, in the last two fiscal years I have had approval to add 1,000 nursing home beds to the system, which approvals I have granted. I hope in the next year I will have permission in my budget allocation to continue to do that where need can be demonstrated.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, of those 1,000 beds, how many are already set up and in place?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mf. Speaker, as of the end of August, as I told the member yesterday, 223 of those 1,000 were open.

Mr. McClellan: Way to go.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Thank you very much. The member just confirmed the validity of the old saying that sarcasm is not wit, but merely the babbling of a diseased mind.

CHARGES AGAINST JUDGES

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney General. I would like to ask the minister if he could update us on the situation in Windsor with Judge Henrikson and Judge Docherty. Could the minister indicate to us, since Judge Henrikson has already had his preliminary trial, whether he can make a commitment today that there will in fact be a trial and not simply a resignation without a trial? When will we get the results of the judicial review done on Judge Docherty so we know exactly what the situation of this case is in Windsor, which has been dragging on for a number of months?

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the charge or charges against Judge Henrikson, the matter, as the member quite properly points out, has gone through a preliminary inquiry and the judge has been committed for trial. That trial will proceed. Any resignation would not interfere with the fact that the trial would have to proceed.

As far as the other judge is concerned, there were in-camera hearings by the Ontario Judicial Council. These hearings are required by law to be in camera, and I think I will be in a position to advise the House within the next week as to the effect of the in-camera hearings. I am just not able to advise the House what the results will be at this very moment, but I expect to be in a position to do so very shortly.

Mr. Cooke: Could the minister indicate to the House why it is that in these cases where judges are involved with legal problems they are left on the payroll,

whereas when members of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union are in similar circumstances they are cut off the payroll until their cases are heard? Why does the minister treat judges differently than he treats his unionized employees?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think there are some procedures involving judges that are absolutely necessary in order to maintain the independence of that institution, that are, I think, appropriate for the judiciary. Certainly in the case of judges, if there are allegations the truth of which has to be examined, I think it would be very detrimental to the principle of judicial independence, a principle that is so important to a democratic society, if we did not keep the judges on salary, as the member put it, until the allegations are sorted out.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to embark on idle speculation about idle speculation, with the greatest of respect.

ASSISTANCE TO BEEF PRODUCERS

Mr. Sheppard: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to ask the Minister of Agriculture and Food. How soon can the cow-calf operators expect their money? Before Christmas? I am sure a lot of them would like it before Christmas, if at all possible.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I showed a form here when I made the statement. We had our agricultural representatives in yesterday and made them aware of the process. For the ag reps who did not get in, those forms are being delivered to their offices today. It is hoped farmers will come to the ag rep's office any time after tomorrow morning and then he will assist them in filling in the form. Once an ag rep gets sufficient forms, 10, 12, 15 or 20, he will deliver them to our office here at 801 Bay Street and 10 working days after they are delivered here, cheques will be delivered back to the ag's office.

He, in turn, will phone the farmers. That way we hope the farmers will have them at least a week before Christmas.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, how did he arrive at $40 a cow when the Ontario Cattlemen's Association made a request for $80 a cow if the farmers were to at least break even?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member knows our Farm Income Stabilization Act would have permitted $17 per cow. We worked on many different sets of figures, but one figure we worked on was a 400-pound calf at 10 cents a pound, which is $40.

Mr. Sargent: That's a lot of bull!

Hon. Mr. Henderson: All right, stand up and say that.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor- Sandwich with a new question.

Mr. Pollock: I have a supplementary.

Mr. Breithaupt: On a point of order: The minister apparently has a supplementary, so perhaps it should be asked.

Mr. McClellan: Why doesn't he ask it himself?

Mr. Eaton: I have a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock) was on his feet.

Mr. Eakins: But you did not see him.

Mr. Speaker: You are right, I did not.

Mr. Sargent: That's not the way they rehearsed it.

Mr. Martel: Lorne, you read the question.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Smith: If the minister arranges for several supplementaries, the least he can do is hear them.

Mr. Speaker: It was your colleague who drew this to my attention, with all respect. I assumed, in drawing it to my attention, he had the permission of the rest of the members.

Mr. Peterson: Is this a new question?

Mr. Speaker: No, it is not. You are out of order.

Mr. Peterson: I am not out of order. It has to go back to the original questioner.

Mr. Speaker: I am not changing anything. Are you going to make a speech?

Mr. Peterson: I would be very happy to.

Mr. Speaker: Just sit down.

Mr. Peterson: Tell us what the rules are.

Mr. Speaker: The rules will remain the same. I was co-operating with a member of your caucus, the member for Kitchener, who apparently does not have as much influence as I felt he had. The member for Windsor-Sandwich with a new question.

COBEX REMOVAL

Mr. Wrye: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment on the situation at the old Bendix plant in Windsor and regarding the herbicide Cobex. The minister will be aware that this herbicide has been at the plant for more than four months now and the transferring of the herbicide from leaking containers to larger and safer containers is still going on.

I want to impress on the minister the intensity of the concerns of the people on the west side of the city by telling him at the outset that I am going to be presenting a petition later today signed by some 840 people who are expressing those concerns.

What level of monitoring has the ministry been doing to ensure that this very dangerous and highly flammable herbicide is being properly and safely transferred to the new drums? Why has the transfer taken so long? When are these drums going to be removed from this plant and specifically under what conditions?

Will the minister give this House his assurance that officials from the Ministry of the Environment and from the Minister of Labour's department will be on hand to ensure that the containers are properly packaged on the trucks and that the trucks are moved as safely as possible so that the workers and the people in the neighbourhood have no risk of exposure to this very deadly herbicide?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the situation to which the honourable member refers. Staff from my ministry and the Ministry of Labour have been involved in the situation, in monitoring, supervising and providing advice on the safe handling of the material.

I understand it has taken rather longer than had been anticipated, partly because of special precautions that had to be taken with respect to safety. It is my understanding that at one point there was some concern about the pumping device that was being used to transfer the material from the smaller containers into the more secure and larger containers.

The procedure had to be interrupted pending consultation on what the best available machinery was to complete the transfer in a safe way. At present, they project the transfer to the new containers will be completed some time next week, with the objective being to complete the safe transport of the material beginning in the week of December 7.

I can assure the member everything that can be done will be done to ensure not only the safe handling of the material during the balance of the time it is in the plant in Windsor, but also in the transfer that will take place when and as it returns to the United States.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that Professor Joe Cummings, an associate professor of genetics at the University of Windsor, has noted there are enough carcinogens in the Cobex "to give most people in Windsor cancer if they breathe its toxic vapours during a fire"? We are also aware that other delisted pesticides sit in various warehouses across the province.

Given these facts, and given that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario passed a resolution in August suggesting that the province establish a monitoring agency that would, in co-operation with local boards of health, register dangerous commodities passing through communities, can the minister advise us how he has responded to the AMO suggestion? If he has not responded, why not?

May I also suggest to the minister that this question was raised by me in the House on November 10 with his colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie), then again on November 24 and the problem still has not been resolved.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure which problem the honourable member is referring to, whether it is the question about the reference from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture or whether he is talking about the Cobex problem. As far as his reference to the communication with the Ontario Federation of Labour is concerned, frankly I would have to check. I do not know whether at this point I have responded formally to them or not, but I will check and find out the status of that.

With regard to the member's opening comment on the potential hazard involved with this material, yes, I am aware it is viewed as a potentially very hazardous material, which is precisely why it is being dealt with as carefully as it is. As I believe the member knows, although the material is now no longer on the Canadian market, and the reason it happens to be in Windsor is that it was on its way out of the country back to the manufacturer in the United States, it is still available on the American market.

That is no justification for our treating it any less carefully than we are, but I can assure the member and I would hope he would assure his constituents and others in the Windsor area who have legitimately some anxiety, especially when they hear statements like that from knowledgeable people in the academic community, that it is being treated very carefully.

ORGANIZED CRIME INFORMER

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney General concerning the woman who was beaten by police informer Cecil Kirby at the Cara Inn on July 15, 1981. Is the minister prepared to offer to this victim some measure of protection? In particular, is he prepared to give us his personal assurance that Mr. Kirby will not be allowed to contact this woman and is he prepared to accept some responsibility for relocation expenses for her?

It appears that the woman is afraid of certain police officers and Kirby visiting her and is now in rather a complete state of physical and mental exhaustion. Is he prepared to offer to this victim of a police informer beating some measure of protection?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the honourable member is referring to so far as the allegations he is making with respect to the current state of this woman's mental health. I have not heard anything and have not been given any information in that respect.

I indicated to the House several weeks ago that I would be reporting back to the House with respect to the very serious allegations that were made and were widely reported in the media, that police officers stood by, as it were, while this woman was being assaulted. I have not yet had a report relating to that. When I do, I will advise the House accordingly. I do not know the present circumstances about which the honourable member is advising the House. Therefore, not knowing those circumstances, apart from what he has stated, I am not in a position to comment further.

Mr. Breaugh: According to her lawyers, she is now in a state of total nervous exhaustion. Since it would appear the minister is prepared to offer relocation expenses in the amount of some $200,000, would it not be reasonable for the crown now to move to offer some measure of protection and assistance to this woman, who is the victim of a crime allegedly committed by a police informer while he was in police custody? Would the minister be prepared to consider that?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: All I can say at this time is that I am prepared to inquire into the situation as the honourable member has related it to me.

ASSISTANCE TO BEEF PRODUCERS

Mr. Pollock: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Are dairy cattle that are bred to beef breeds going to be eligible for the cow-calf supplement, especially if they are not cream or milk producers?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, under item two on my form, eligible animals are females kept for beef purposes that have had or will have a calf in 1981, owned by the applicant. Cows kept for the production of milk are not eligible; only cows kept for the production of beef calves.

Mr. Eaton: Mr. Speaker, the statement refers to all "cows on hand as of August 1, 1981, provided these cows were bred in Ontario to produce a calf in 1981." Inasmuch as some of our beef herds are supplemented with cows coming in from western Canada that may have been bred last year, brought here in the fall, calved here and continue on in the herd, will those cattle be eligible?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, these forms were put together this morning. When the statement came to me at noon it said "beef cows kept for beef" and the statement was changed at noon to clarify that it was "cows that were kept for the production of beef calves." The phrase the member is referring to, "bred in Ontario," is not part of the application. The cows he refers to, which were brought down for the production of beef calves, will qualify if they are on the farm as of August 1.

USE OF TIME IN QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. Mancini: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Of course, you are aware, sir, that if the members of the government decide on a daily basis that they are going to participate in question period on a routine basis, we in the Liberal Party and my friends in the New Democratic Party are not going to be able to share properly in question period time.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to point out to all honourable members that the time for oral questions is indeed time for all honourable members in this House. I think you have made your point, and I understand what you are saying, but you are out of order.

PETITIONS

GO TRANSIT SERVICE

Mr. Cousens: On behalf of 3,500 signatories, on behalf of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells), on behalf of the member for York North (Mr. Hodgson), and the many users and potential users of GO train service in Markham, Unionville, Stouffville and Agincourt, I present this petition: "We have received no answer from the federal government. There is little likelihood that they will respond to our needs. The Ontario government has done an outstanding job with GO train service, and we solicit the support of the Ontario government for this important service."

3:30 p.m.

COBEX REMOVAL

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition signed by 840 citizens living on the west side of Windsor. This petition demands the immediate and safe removal of the cancer-causing herbicide Cobex. Specifically it states:

"We the people of the west of Windsor, Prince Road vicinity, are petitioning for the removal of Cobex herbicide from the Prince Road warehouse and right out of the city before the chemical causes public health hazards, namely cancer."

MOTION

ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the estimates of the Ministry of the Environment be considered in the standing committee on resources development, concurrently with Bill 7,

An Act to revise and extend Protection of Human Rights in Ontario, in committee of the whole House this evening.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

ELECTION FINANCES REFORM AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Samis moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, first reading of Bill 182,

An Act to amend the Election Finances Reform Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, the present act limits contributions to political parties, constituency associations and candidates to persons individually, corporations and trade unions. This bill would remove the reference to corporations and trade unions to the effect that only individuals would be permitted to make contributions.

MOTION TO SUSPEND NORMAL BUSINESS

Mr. Wildman moved, seconded by Mr. MacDonald, pursuant to standing order 34, that the business of the House be set aside so that the House may debate a matter of urgent public importance, that being the new evidence of deepening economic recession in Ontario provided yesterday by the release of economic indicators from Statistics Canada and the failure of this government to take effective steps in an emergency budget to stimulate the economy and create jobs.

Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 34, the honourable member has up to five minutes to state his case.

Mr. Wildman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With the publication of the figures by Statistics Canada yesterday, we are all aware of what a bleak picture we face today as we head into the winter with an economic slump that is much worse than any of the experts believed it to be, much worse than even the projections made by the Conference Board of Canada published yesterday.

The StatsCan figures indicate that for the third quarter the gross national product has declined by one per cent. When that is adjusted for inflation the annual rate of decline is four per cent, which is a tremendous decline when one considers that we had a growth rate of about 5.6 per cent in the second quarter of this year.

Real output has fallen by 1.9 per cent, which is the most severe decline in the last 30 years. Investments in many areas have fallen short of what is needed to provide the jobs we need in our economy. For instance, investment in machinery and equipment is down by 5.9 per cent.

The Conference Board in Canada figures yesterday indicated a decline of 1.2 per cent in the gross national product and the conference board, as a result of that, said we face a serious situation of declining industrial output in the economy in 1982.

These figures today, however, are much worse than that. We have been told that experts such as Roger Keane of Midland-Doherty predict we are going to see a disaster for the fourth quarter figures when they are published and that today we may be facing an annual decline of between six and seven per cent, if not greater. This would make it the worst decline in our economic situation since 1951. Obviously the problems we face are the result of record high interest rates and the concomitant poor consumer demand.

We are facing a situation where in the retail trade we have high inventories and little is moving. We are in the midst of a recession. We have little hope of improvement. We face for 1982 and for this winter high inflation, high interest rates and higher unemployment. We are going to see continued sluggish automobile sales and fewer housing starts. The sagging economic situation is coupled with and is compounded when one considers the high current account deficit of something approaching $6 billion in 1982.

The spending consumers are making on durable goods has fallen by 5.7 per cent. That is the largest decline since 1976. Demand for automobiles has declined by 6.3 per cent in volume. Overall, there is a decline in personal expenditures on goods and services of 0.9 per cent. Interestingly enough, when we ask for a reaction from this government we have a $21 million rebate on 1981 automobiles that are still in inventory and the Statistics Canada statement says its figures follow the temporary suspension of sales taxes on specific items in Ontario. In other words, the only answer that is proposed by this government has not been adequate. The decline continues.

When one looks at the only thing this government has pointed to in terms of economic stimulation, the BILD program, it is obvious it is a complete failure. When we looked at the 45 projects announced by the Treasurer in his recent statement, of 26 of them, the ministries involved could not give us any job projections at all. Of those job projections we did see there were less than 1,500 jobs, most of them for the Toronto convention centre.

Obviously this is an inadequate response. What is needed is a budget. The federal budget did not respond to the needs of Ontario. This government has the responsibility to do that. We need relief from high interest rates. We need to stimulate consumer demand and we need a job creation program that will provide us with the jobs we need this winter. It is about time this government lived up to its responsibilities.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, we would certainly support a debate at this time on the sad state of Ontario's economy. The policies of this government, as I perceive them, basically come down to waiting to see whether there will be a recovery eventually in the United States of America. They hope such a recovery will have benefits that will spill over the border into Canada and will benefit Ontario as an industrial centre waiting to sell products to consumers who, at the moment, are not inclined to purchase the products we happen to be producing here.

That is an easy answer. That is a simple understatement of the situation. It marks the way this government, at heart, really regards the situation. I honestly believe a decent person like the Treasurer would be doing something, except that he truly believes in his heart there is not an awful lot Ontario can do when things have a downturn in the United States. He believes our economies are interwoven and there is very little he can do in the face of the high interest rates and so on which are forced upon us.

3:40 p.m.

Of all the things I have seen here in six years, what disturbs me most is this acceptance on the part of the government that Ontario is obliged to participate in the decline of traditional industries in the foundry of northeastern United States. I profoundly disagree with the government that we must simply go down with those traditional industries as prosperity moves to Canada's west and to the United States southwest.

Canada will be all right. We have a downturn now, we may have a serious recession ahead of us, but ultimately the country will come out of it because of our resource base. Ontario, however, may never come out of the present downturn. It has been going on throughout the 1970s, it is likely to continue in the 1980s and we may never come out of it as we know Ontario to be now. Our youngsters are very likely to have to find their future in another part of this country because Ontario depends on manufacturing and this country is going to run up about a $23 billion deficit in international trade in manufactured end products in this coming year.

Our province simply must get into industries that have a future in manufacturing. It is not good enough to talk about election gimmicks which were obviously very successful in getting votes, and to speak of BILD and this and that. We have to have a strategy to equal that of the Japanese. While people are not buying American cars they are buying Japanese cars and while the western world is in decline as long as Mr.

Reagan's policies are going to be to fight inflation by recession, the fact remains that our competitors in Japan have plans today to dominate the economy of the free world within the next eight or nine years. We are going to have to compete not simply with Michigan and Pennsylvania, who are in decline as we are, we are going to have to compete with Japan and with other nations in other parts of this world.

Ontario has the opportunity to move into new areas, new forms of energy, new forms of pollution control equipment, new industries in electronics, new industries that can service the resource sector that we have in energy, in mining, in agriculture and in resource industries generally. We have to have a strategy, we have to have confidence in our own people and we have to depend on the small and medium-sized Canadian businesses that are not just going to act as branch plants and are not just going to do the bidding given to them from Washington or elsewhere and consequently accelerate the decline each time it happens.

We are in a situation now where even when the dollar goes down in value we hardly benefit, because the branch plants continue to import their parts from their mother company down south no matter how much they happen to cost. We are obliged to accept the decline that has happened and to reverse it by moving into new industries with targets that will create jobs here. It is inconceivable to me, no matter how good a speculation Suncor may turn out to be in the future, that the Ontario government would announce to the world the only place they can find to invest money at this time is in western Canada where there are tar sands and a bright future. They believe that is where the action is.

We must believe in ourselves in Ontario. We must believe in our young people. We must believe in our small business people and we have to have a coherent strategy to get Ontario working again, not only this winter but to have a future in the 1980s and 1990s to compete with Japan and with other parts of this world.

We are as smart as anybody. We have the ability. We lack a government committed to a decent strategy of industrial growth.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I think the question to be decided by yourself today is not whether the economy has a problem. I think anyone who tried to say we are not facing difficult economic times would be laughed out of court. I have not tried to say that. The question should be whether it is resolved in this House and by emergency debate.

Tomorrow my estimates begin. I think that is the proper place to have that kind of debate. There will be 12 hours of debate, two full days, and I would suggest that is the traditional, and in this case immediate, place for such a debate.

I am told there has been a similar motion placed before the federal House today. The federal House, of course, has recently brought down a budget. In my opinion, that is a House which needs greatly to be influenced in terms of effects upon Canada's economy. Many of the things Mr. MacEachen did in his budget really have struck at the fibre of investment motivation in Canada.

He has done things to farmers so that if they sell their farm they pay their income tax in one year instead of spreading it out over a number of years. He talked about taking it from the rich. I do not think many farmers caught by that move will feel they were the rich.

Mr. Martel: He did nothing of the sort.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Miller: He has taken a series of moves to prevent the redeployment of an investor's funds that will attract tax in advance of attracting cash. He has done a whole series of things that I think will fundamentally make people say "I do not want to invest in this country. I would rather invest someplace else." I would argue that one of the most important things a politician does is create an atmosphere of confidence for investment.

I was intrigued by the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition as he wound up his speech. He said, "We have to believe in ourselves." I could not agree more, and yet all I have really ever heard the honourable member do, going around this province, is to make people believe that we have no future, that we have no chance, that we are a bunch of dim-witted second-rate citizens. I would argue that philosophy was rejected. I would argue that the honourable member has done as much as anyone to destroy that confidence.

Mr. Speaker, I simply say to you this is not the time or the place for that kind of debate.

Mr. Smith: That's bull roar.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: No understatements, Stuart.

Mr. Smith: That's what I have done, understate.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have listened intently and with great interest to the comments of the members of the three parties. Quite obviously, we are faced with a very serious situation and I do not want to diminish that in any way. However, I do find the motion is out of order, mainly because there will be a chance to debate it more completely during the Treasurer's estimates which will be before the general government committee.

I would also point out to all the honourable members that the budget debate is still going on, so there will be opportunity to discuss this at greater length.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: I wish to table the answer to question 247 and the interim answer to question 248 standing on the Notice Paper. (See Hansard for Friday, December 4.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Norton, moved third reading of Bill 143,

An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act.

Motion agreed to.

BANKFIELD CONSOLIDATED MINES LIMITED ACT

Mr. Robinson moved second reading of Bill Pr9,

An Act to revive Bankfield Consolidated Mines Limited.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

BURFORD LIONS CLUB ACT

Mr. Nixon moved second reading of Bill Pr 15,

An Act to revive the Burford Lions Club.

Mr. Nixon: I can tell members where Burford is and all about it, if they would care to know.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

3:50 p.m.

JACINTA INVESTMENTS LIMITED ACT

Mr. Rotenberg moved second reading of Bill Pr19,

An Act to revive Jacinta Investments Limited.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion. state.

TOWNSHIP OF NORTH DORCHESTER ACT

Mr. Eaton moved second reading of Bill Pr25,

An Act respecting the Township of North Dorchester.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF KANATA ACT

Mr. MacQuarrie, on behalf of Mr. Mitchell, moved second reading of Bill Pr31,

An Act respecting the City of Kanata.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

TOWN OF BRACEBRIDGE ACT

Mr. Eves moved second reading of Bill Pr32,

An Act respecting the Town of Bracebridge.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

TOWN OF GRAVENHURST ACT

Mr. Eves moved second reading of Bill Pr33,

An Act respecting the Town of Gravenhurst.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE ACT

Mr. Eves moved second reading of Bill Pr34,

An Act respecting the Town of Huntsville.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

TOWNSHIP OF CHANDOS ACT

Mr. Pollock moved second reading of Bill Pr36,

An Act respecting the Township of Chandos.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

TORDOM CORPORATION CONTINUATION AUTHORIZATION ACT

Ms. Fish, on behalf of Mrs. Scrivener, moved second reading of Bill Pr40,

An Act respecting Tordom Corporation.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

House in committee of the whole.

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE (CONTINUED)

Resuming consideration of Bill 7,

An Act to revise and extend Protection of Human Rights in Ontario.

Mr. Chairman: I bring to all members' attention and that of those with us in the gallery that we are dealing with Bill 7,

An Act to revise and extend Protection of Human Rights in Ontario. It is my understanding the committee of the whole House concluded debate on a proposed amendment by Mr. Renwick.

Mr. Riddell moved that sections 1 to 5 inclusive of Bill 7 be amended by adding after the word "handicapped" the words "political belief."

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Chairman, I think it is necessary we have this amendment included in the bill to prevent the rather unfortunate situation that happened in one of our sister provinces, I believe it was Nova Scotia, where there was a change of government and all of a sudden 2,000 civil servants found they were without jobs. I would hate to see that type of thing happen in Ontario or any other province for that matter.

Also I think it might stop some of the political patronage we see occurring here in Ontario. We all well know that at one time before anyone could get a job in a liquor store he had to support the Conservative Party. Fortunately, the unions have now stepped in and they have put a stop to this with the exception perhaps of the appointment of a manager. I think maybe the unions could apply pressure on that and make it embarrassing for the government if it tried to appoint a manager of a store who happened to support the Conservative Party and that was the only qualification he really had.

It bothers me when I see such things happen as the appointment to the Ontario Racing Commission of a former minister of the crown here in Ontario, a person by the name of Charles MacNaughton. He has an excellent pension and yet was appointed as chairman of the Ontario Racing Commission knowing very little about the horse business.

4 p.m.

I know there were some people connected with the racing association, with the standardbreds and the thoroughbreds, who had a great deal of knowledge about the racing association and who would have liked that job. They were not given any consideration simply because the great Charles MacNaughton, the former Treasurer of this province, decided he had enough of politics and forced a by-election in 1973. The government thought they would honour the fellow by giving him the chairmanship of the Ontario Racing Commission. That is irresponsible and completely unacceptable as far as I am concerned.

We can turn to the Ontario Police Commission. Who got the job as chairman of the police commission? None other than Elmer Bell, the man who was responsible for getting Charlie MacNaughton elected year after year.

Mr. Renwick: What about Phil ?

Mr. Riddell: Do not think there was not a little politics involved there, my friend. The Ontario government dearly wanted to pick up that seat so I think some negotiations went on in that regard too.

The point I am trying to make is this government does not necessarily appoint the people who are qualified to do the job. They appoint these people because they happen to be old, faithful, loyal, Conservative supporters. I would like to see a stop put to this. If by putting in this amendment we can put an end once and for all to this political patronage, I think all members of this House should give it serious consideration.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say we support the amendment. I thought the member for Huron-Middlesex had introduced it to protect himself on the political beliefs he expressed in this House last night, and that he did not want to be discriminated against because of the beliefs he expressed here in this assembly. That was the most incoherent statement of personal political beliefs I have ever heard in my life and I can well understand he would not want anyone to discriminate against him because of it.

We will support the amendment. I may say that --

Mr. Riddell: Perhaps the member would like to elaborate on that. He is talking nonsense.

Mr. Renwick: I did want to say even I thought there was some politics involved in the appointment of Phil Givens as head of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Commission.

We support the amendment for a more important reason: because it is the policy of the New Democratic Party. In this caucus we are bound by the policy of and are under the direction of the party. We consider that in this society a person's political beliefs are an irrelevant consideration with respect to the availability of services, accommodation, employment and membership in associations.

Some people try to make a subtle distinction. For example, when we become the government I think the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch) of this province would want to resign. It would not be a question of discrimination on the grounds of his political belief. I think he would automatically wish to leave his employment at that time.

The great bulk of people should not be placed in jeopardy regarding the availability of services, accommodation, associations and employment covered by this bill. We are delighted with the amendment. We would have moved it ourselves if the member for Huron-Middlesex had not moved it and we will support it.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Chairman, I also want to speak in favour of the amendment and support the points put forth by my colleague in the Liberal Party.

If we think back to the period in committee, we will recall that the Ontario Federation of Labour pointed out to us the fact that some 2,000 Nova Scotia civil servants were axed simply because of a change of government. Obviously there may be situations where certain senior policy advisers and deputy ministers may have to leave with a government, but I think that in general we must respect the principle that employees in the civil service should be protected regardless of changes in governments.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment for the reasons that my colleague the member for Riverdale has mentioned but also because I think that in Ontario today there is a very subtle form of discrimination on the basis of political beliefs.

This discrimination is not openly stated, but it does exist, especially for that group of citizens who happen to be the civil servants of the province. The legislation we have in Ontario today makes them second-class citizens, because they cannot express their political beliefs publicly, they cannot belong to the opposition political parties and they are therefore restrained from expressing themselves in the way they choose.

I think it is time that every citizen in this province be treated fairly and equitably without discrimination because of political beliefs. We have had innumerable examples in the past of citizens who have chosen to run for or were active in the opposition parties and who were literally persecuted, such as my colleague the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton), while we have had innumerable examples of citizens who chose to work and are working for the Conservative Party who, of course, have received all kinds of opportunities.

With this amendment, I think we can close that loophole and bring some justice to a sector of our citizenry being discriminated against today.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of this motion as well. I presume from the silence on the other side that we have their consent.

The only thing I want to add to the learned things my colleagues the member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo) and the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) have said is that at this time it should be seen to be unthinkable that somebody could have a job denied him in Ontario just because he is a Conservative; it should be seen to be totally unthinkable that, just because somebody has so misconstrued reality as actually to think that being a Conservative is a useful thing, this should keep him from employment in this province. I am sure all members on the other side will agree.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Chairman, I wish to add my words of commendation to the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) for initiating this amendment, which I think will be a very valuable part of this bill if it is accepted by the House.

Many of us on the opposition side -- and I suppose the longer one is on the opposition side, the more one sees this -- have been disturbed by the fact that many people in this province over the years have been denied an equal opportunity to obtain employment because of their political affiliation or because of their known political leanings while others have enjoyed employment opportunities because of their affiliation with the government in power.

The Tory hack the member for Middlesex (Mr. Eaton) is one of the prime examples of a person who believes in the patronage system. But we see examples day in and day out, and the most obvious example is the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. Everybody in my area knows the way to get a job in the liquor stores in the Niagara Peninsula is to know the right people or to be mighty lucky, but it certainly helps to have a recommendation from the right person.

4:10 p.m.

Individuals have come to me over the years and said, "I would like a job in a liquor store." I am really in a dilemma because, first of all, I have no influence over that, nor do I want influence over who gets a job in a liquor store. I think it should be determined on merit. But I also have the dilemma of wondering whether I should name the person in my area who exerts influence on the hiring policies of the liquor board, because the individual might well need a job. Do I tell him he should see Mr. X for this job or not?

There are many examples. The member for Huron-Middlesex has listed some. The member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) landed a beautiful job when he was defeated, I think, in the federal election. The provincial government had a job waiting for him.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Merit -- complete merit.

Mr. Bradley: The Minister of Labour retains his good sense of humour.

We then have the example of the Workmen's Compensation Board and the list of people who have been able to obtain jobs there. The former member for Hamilton Mountain, I think it was, who certainly did not distinguish himself as one of the better parliamentarians in this House, at least not from the news media reports we read and evaluations from pretty objective people, was able to land himself a job in the Workmen's Compensation Board. And the list goes on.

I could speak for an hour on the Tory hacks who have been able to get jobs and about others who are people of some ability, as the minister points out. There have been people of some ability as well, but the ultimate decision has been influenced by their political affiliation. It is my belief, in principle, that this should be ended, and I am hopeful that the members of the government, who are highly principled people, will support the amendment as put forward by the member for Huron-Middlesex.

Mr. Chairman: I point out to all honourable members that it is the chair's responsibility to try to restrain members in their use of unparliamentary language. Quite frankly, I say to the member for St. Catharines, I have difficulty with the term "hack," in terms of parliamentary language, as inciting too much so-called rowdyism in the Legislature. Under the circumstances, since there was not a great fervour about it, we will make no further comments, except to say that, knowing the quality of person you are, I hope you will refrain at some future time from possibly inciting members with unparliamentary language.

Mr. Bradley: I thank the Chairman for his advice.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Chairman, the issue of political belief really is not quite as straightforward as some members would have it seen. The words "political affiliation" were used by the member for St. Catharines, "political belief" by another, "political leaning" by yet another and "political activities" by a fourth member. Other provinces have encountered similar problems with this particular definition.

But I want to make one thing very clear to the member for Huron-Middlesex, so he can go home and relax and feel confident about things. There has been no house cleaning of civil servants in the provincial government of Ontario ever since the public in its good judgement defeated the Hepburn Liberal government in 1943. The member can be very sure of that.

I recall, as a young member arriving here some three or four years ago, the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) paying great tribute to the fact that the patronage system did not exist in this public service and this government. Thank God, we are rid of it. I am sure the member is glad to be rid of it too. I join the member in saying that we are grateful in this province that a Conservative government has cleaned up a mess that a former Liberal government left behind.

Let us also understand that we also are blessed with a Public Service Act; so that where any public servant is discharged for any reason he has a remedy which is called a grievance. Any others who are discharged from any situation in society have a right under common law called unjust dismissal. It is my view that the Life Together commissioners, who travelled the province, found very little, if anything, to indicate that there was a problem in this province in this area.

In the light of the matters I have discussed, the government is not prepared to accept that amendment.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Riddell's amendment will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Amendment stacked.

Mr. Chairman: I want to point out two items. First, the member for Riverdale also proposed an amendment with the exact same intent as that proposed by the member for Huron-Middlesex. Under the circumstances --

Mr. Renwick: I won't be placing it.

Mr. Chairman: You will not be presenting it?

I have another question upon which I seek your guidance. We have had one or two proposed amendments of a similar nature. However, they are put in at different points in

section 1. Within my own mind. I have made the ruling of following the official opposition on their amendment first, even if, for instance, your proposed amendment, if it is exactly the same, follows ahead of one of the words in the section. Are you agreeable?

Mr. Boudria: Sounds reasonable to me.

Mr. Renwick: I am quite agreeable to that.

Mr. Chairman: Thank you very much. I wanted to make that clear to the House so that we would not run into controversial items.

Ms. Copps moves that sections 1 to 5, inclusive, be amended by adding, after the words "ethnic origin," the word "language."

Ms. Copps: Mr. Chairman, we moved this in committee as well as in the House for the reason that there are certainly many instances in Ontario where our minorities need to be protected in terms of language rights. I represent many Italian-speaking and Polish-speaking immigrants in my community who for one reason or another have sometimes been stood down for a job or a place to live when they have been perfectly able to do the job but may not have been able to speak the language.

Even though citizenship and ethnic origin are also components in the bill, it is important that we specifically underline in the human rights code an endorsement of the general principle of language protection and include it in prohibited grounds of discrimination.

The inclusion of this amendment certainly would go a long way to creating the kind of climate for language in this province that we have to work very hard to preserve in a multicultural, multiracial society. This amendment is a statement of principle; and if there are situations where a prospective employee cannot do a job, for example, because he or she is impeded by a language barrier, it is only reasonable under these bona fide circumstances that language will be brought to bear and not included as a prohibited ground of discrimination.

I propose the amendment with the full knowledge that under bona fide circumstances in employment the issue of language need not be a prohibited area of discrimination; but in general terms, as we have seen fit in this legislation to include ethnic origin and citizenship, it is important that we spell out language rights as a general statement of principle for our Ontario Human Rights Code.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment because, representing a riding where there is a very large ethnic community, I happen to deal almost every day with people who find it difficult to exercise their full rights as human beings in this society as a result of the language barrier.

The language barrier is an obstacle that results in discrimination, because in many instances the people who are affected are excluded from jobs, from accommodation, from participation in unions and from the ability to make contracts by this barrier, which is not their fault but results from objective circumstances.

4:20 p.m.

We have many cases of people who have been in Canada for many years but who, because of the environment in which they live and operate, have not been able to learn the language of this province or, I suppose in other instances in the province of Quebec, the French language. But they are still citizens because they have acquired the citizenship of this country or because they have been residents for many years; and despite that fact, they cannot fully use the benefits of their condition.

I think it is wise for the human rights code to eliminate this type of discrimination, which does exist even if it is not stated publicly. I might add briefly that language in many instances has racial undertones, undertones that do not come up very often. For that reason as well, I will support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: The member for --

Ms. Copps: Prescott-Russell.

Mr. Chairman: Prescott-Russell. Thank you.

Ms. Copps: How could you forget?

Mr. Chairman: I know; how could I forget?

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Chairman, I was worried for a while that you would forget the name of my constituency, and I want you to know that the people of my riding would never have forgiven you for that. I am glad, nevertheless, that you did remember it.

I will not speak very long on this matter, because I have already outlined my thoughts to the committee and I am sure all members recall what I had to say at that time. I just want to recall to the minds of the members of this House the following, which I stated in front of the committee. I am sure the minister will recall that I referred to an editorial in the Ottawa Citizen, entitled "Mocking Human Rights." Basically, it says the following:

"With an increasing number of racist incidents in this province, Davis is taking steps to demonstrate his government's support of newcomers to the Canadian society. That's commendable, but the cruel irony is obvious: Davis will turn his party's policies inside out to welcome new Canadians, but he won't recognize the special rights of francophones. The former is important for the future growth of his party; the latter is important for the retention of the conservative base he already enjoys."

In other words, the editor of the Ottawa Citizen is telling us, things are being done this way on purpose. They are being done this way because not expanding the rights of francophones is seen to be a good thing for the majority of the people in this province. I do not think it is, and I do not even think the population of this province really thinks this way. Nevertheless, one has to wonder at the persistence of this government not to increase anything that has to do with what may be interpreted as francophone rights.

In this case, although we are not strictly talking about that issue, we are talking about language rights in general. As I said to the committee, and as the member for Yorkview (Mr. Spensieri) said to me after the meeting of the committee, this was a good amendment. He was concerned because it applied very well to his constituency as well as to mine.

I draw the attention of the minister to a question I raised in the House approximately a week ago. It relates to an

article in La Presse of Montreal. The minister may remember La Presse stated in that

article that the Premier of this province had written a letter to a lady from Ottawa explaining he was supporting the charter of rights of this country, not for the expansion of francophone rights in Ontario but rather to try to control the power of linguistic rights that the government of Quebec had under Bill 101.

In Le Droit of Ottawa last week, a paragraph in an editorial headed "Davis et la Charte des droits" and written by Alain Dexter states the following, which I will read for the benefit of the House:

"Quoi qu'il en soit de l'impact que pourrait avoir au plan 'national' cette lettre que le premier ministre William Davis a fait parvenir, l'hiver dernier, à une citoyenne d'Ottawa, et où il traite de la position de l'Ontario face à la charte des droits, la réalité qu'elle traduit ne constitue pas une bien grosse révélation au plan 'intérieur.' En somme, que M. Davis voit la charte des droits comme un moyen de contrecarrer les effets de la Loi 101 sur la minorité anglophone du Québec, voilà que ne surprendra aucun Ontarien le moindrement familier avec le credo politique des châtelains de Queen's Park."

The editor of Le Droit is of the opinion that we should not be surprised by the attitude of this government towards linguistic rights.

I urge the minister to include this amendment in his bill. With the recent events of the last few weeks, where the credibility of this government vis-à-vis linguistic rights has been seriously undermined by that

article in La Presse of Montreal, this government would have a chance to prove it is willing to go ahead with one small step towards improving linguistic rights in this province.

It is not a major amendment. It would not change much in the bill, but at least it would be one concrete step to indicate the minister is willing to go ahead one little bit. This is not the private member's bill of the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) guaranteeing services. This is not

section 133 of the British North America Act. This is only a small thing compared to that.

I know the government has not been willing to go along with

section 133. I know the government has so far done nothing with the member for Ottawa East's private bill, although it was introduced a number of years ago and has been reintroduced lately, seconded by me. I do not accept that; I wish the government would go ahead in that direction. But here is an opportunity today to take that one small step which may indicate there is some willingness on the part of this government to recognize linguistic rights a little more in this province.

Therefore, I appeal to the minister to go along with this small amendment and to demonstrate some good faith for his government.

4:30 p.m.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of the amendment. I agree with the general sentiments expressed by the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria). I am of the opinion that the best place for this would have been in the constitution of Canada so that rights could be guaranteed.

If the amendment were to pass, I would not see this as a major step forward in terms of the historic grievances of the Franco-Ontarian minority, but it would be a small concession and, I suppose, in current circumstances would be considered a step forward; so on that basis we would support it.

I do come back to the essential point, which is that the essential grievance of the Franco-Ontarian minorities is in terms of their rights being guaranteed by the constitution. That is what they have been seeking, and that would have been preferable.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Chairman, I have some brief remarks. As the member for Prescott-Russell said, this was discussed in some detail in committee both when briefs were being presented and subsequently in clause-by-clause consideration. He knows, as I am sure all members know, that the position of the government was made very clear in the recent constitutional amendments.

He knows very well, as a member of this Legislature and as a citizen of this province, that this province need not take second place to anyone with regard to the provision of French-language services in the educational system where numbers warrant it or in the area of provision of services in the field of justice. He knows that, and members of his own party have paid tribute to what has been achieved in this area by this government. The government's general position is known very well and very clearly from the prolonged discussions leading to the constitutional amendment.

The member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo) and the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) discussed concerns that one of their constituents might have trouble with regard to employment over the fact that he spoke a language of another country. May I say to them that if they read the act properly, they will agree that place of origin, ethnic origin and ancestry cannot be construed in any other way than under

section 8: "No person shall ...do, directly or indirectly, anything that infringes a right ..."

I submit to my friends that labelling language is really labelling ethnic origin or place of origin --

Mr. Di Santo: It is not the same.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Do not make that silly movement of the head; just try listening. I tell my friend that is covered.

The government cannot support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Ms. Copps's amendment will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Amendment stacked.

Mr. Chairman: After speaking to the member for Riverdale, it is my understanding that he will withdraw his proposed amendment regarding language.

Mr. Di Santo moves that

section 1 be amended by adding, after the words "marital status," the words "weight and physical height.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I do not have a copy of that amendment. Does anyone else?

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Chairman, I sent a copy to the minister. It was probably misplaced.

Mr. Chairman: Shall we get the minister a copy?

Mr. Cunningham: It sounds like a good idea.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: It's definitely a good idea. I remember the 24-hour notice we all agreed to.

Ms. Copps: We just got it too.

Mr. Boudria: He gave it to the most important people first.

Mr. Chairman: The minister has been most obliging, and I know we appreciate that.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Chairman, I would like to outline briefly the reason I moved this amendment. In the act under

section 1 there is a specification that discrimination must be prohibited because of handicap. But there are cases actually where there is persisting discrimination because of the weight and height of individuals. I am referring specifically to the hiring practices of the police in Ontario. My special concern is Metropolitan Toronto where this problem is blown out of proportion in many instances, but is having its effects.

After the Second World War the setup of Metropolitan Toronto changed dramatically. We had before a rather homogeneous city ethnically speaking.

Mr. Samis: Wasps.

Mr. Di Santo: I do not know if I can use the word suggested by my colleague the member for Cornwall, but of British stock basically.

Since then the setup of the population has changed dramatically. Now the majority of the population is not Anglo-Saxon but belongs to many ethnic groups that came to Canada after the Second World War, initially from Europe and later from other continents -- from southeast Asia or east Asia, Africa and South America. Today, the population of Metropolitan Toronto is a racial mix that is completely different from the population of this city 30 years ago. Despite this dramatic change in the composition of the population we still keep the same standards and the same requirements for our police.

What happens, and what happened in the past, is that there are very serious problems in communication because of languages and in understanding.

Even if the minister says language is included in race, place of origin and ancestry, language is a problem also in this area of communication and understanding. The model of police we have, which is British, does not apply any longer to this multiracial metropolitan city. For cultural reasons, not because it is anyone's fault, there is sometimes a total breakdown of communication.

This problem is becoming more and more serious, and in the last five years we have had five inquiries. We had the Morand commission initially, then the Arthur Maloney commission, then we had an inquiry by Walter Pitman. Last year, it was the turn of Cardinal Carter, who tried to understand why there is so much difficulty in the relationship between what we call ethnic groups and the police, and among the ethnic groups -- those groups that are called coloured visible minorities.

In many instances it has been proposed in the reports given by the police, by the commissioners and especially by Cardinal Carter, that perhaps more policemen belonging to minority groups should be hired. But then we have a height requirement, which is blatant discrimination. In order to become a policeman in Metropolitan Toronto, you must be a certain weight and a certain height. Therefore, people belonging to many ethnic groups who do not have those requirements are excluded. By excluding those people we aggravate a social situation that is very serious. Since there are also racial problems those problems too are aggravated even more.

4:40 p.m.

I think the government should accept this amendment, because it will help to solve problems that are increasing right before our eyes. I think that by eliminating this form of discrimination we will do a service not only to Metropolitan Toronto but to the province of Ontario, and I hope the Minister of Labour is willing to support it.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, I hope the Minister of Labour has been listening to the argument the member for Downsview has put forward. I think it is certainly an anachronism in the 1980s that certain institutions in Metropolitan Toronto do not represent and do not reflect the multicultural makeup of a city such as this.

About two years ago I was interested in finding out to what extent the provincial government through its ministries does hire people of different ethnic backgrounds. Since the human rights code does not permit the collection of information based on ethnicity I had to draft my question on the Order Paper in terms of how many languages are spoken in each ministry of the government and in particular agencies.

I discovered to my astonishment that in ministries where one would expect to find many people in different positions who reflect the multicultural makeup of this province and of Metropolitan Toronto in particular only seven or eight per cent are from different cultural groups. This is