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

December 16, 1981

32nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

COMMISSIONERS OF ESTATE BILLS

ROLE OF AGRICULTURE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS

OMBUDSMAN'S VISIT TO SOUTH AFRICA

TRIBUTES TO F. NORMAN SCOTT

RESETTLEMENT ASSISTANCE FOR POLISH SELF-EXILES

TRIBUTE TO JOCELYN MUIR

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AND COMMERCIAL RELATIONS STATUTES REPEAL BILL

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION BILL

FARMERS' COMPLAINTS

ORAL QUESTIONS

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS

INDIAN BANDS COMPENSATION

IRWIN TOY DISPUTE

FEDERAL BUDGET

HAMILTON RAPID TRANSIT DECISION

WHITCHURCH-STOUFFVILLE WATER QUALITY

CAR TAX REBATES

CORPORATE CONCENTRATION

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

MOTIONS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLEMENTARY SUPPLY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AND COMMERCIAL RELATIONS STATUTES REPEAL ACT

MORTMAIN AND CHARITABLE USES REPEAL ACT

CORPORATIONS INFORMATION AMENDMENT ACT

CHARITIES ACCOUNTING AMENDMENT ACT

CULTURAL. MULTICULTURAL AND RECREATIONAL COUNCIL OF ONTARIO ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CREDIT UNIONS AND CAISSES POPULAIRES AMENDMENT ACT

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES (CONCLUDED)

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF CULTURE AND RECREATION

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Deputy Speaker: The chair has two notices this afternoon, the first being on the Order Paper. It indicates the House will be commencing routine business at 2 p.m. and then again at 8 p.m. The 8 p.m. order is incorrect, as agreed to by all party House leaders. It will be struck from the record.

COMMISSIONERS OF ESTATE BILLS

The Deputy Speaker: Further, I beg to inform the House that the Clerk has received from the commissioners of estate bills their favourable report on Bill Pr21,

An Act respecting the Trusteeship of the Balance Share Warrant of Global Natural Resources Limited.

ROLE OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: The apples on the desk are courtesy of the member for Haldimand-Norfolk. They were grown in Vittoria. The purpose is to get us all in the Christmas spirit and to bring to the attention of the Premier (Mr. Davis), the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) and the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson) what agriculture really means to Ontario. I hope they will not put us in the position of the people in Poland while we have plenty of food. This is to draw it to the attention of this Legislature.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, on the same point, if an apple a day keeps the teacher away, why is it that while enjoying these apples we still have to endure the presence of the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson)?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, it is the doctor the apple keeps away. I used to take one regularly when Morty Shulman was my critic in Health.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, on Monday and Tuesday of this week I met with the federal Minister of Finance and my provincial colleagues in what I viewed to be a critical session. I would like at this time to provide members with my perspective on what transpired.

The most immediate area of discussion was the recent federal budget with its massive tax changes, cuts in federal transfers to provinces and lack of an economic strategy for the nation. In approaching this meeting, I felt it was necessary not only to make clear Ontario's concern with the budget, but to present to Mr. MacEachen a positive plan of action.

Prior to the ministers of finance meeting, I consulted with a number of associations and business groups in order to hear their views on the federal budget. It was clear from their comments that faith in the economic leadership provided by the federal government, already in serious question, had been dealt a severe blow by the recent federal budget. This confirmed the view that I had expressed previously.

Maintaining a healthy degree of confidence is essential to ensuring an attractive investment climate, a climate where small businesses and large businesses, sophisticated investors and those of more moderate means, will provide the effort, capital and the degree of entrepreneurship that creates jobs and prosperity for all Canadians.

In this regard, I am convinced that certain measures in the federal budget, plus the incredibly abrupt manner in which the changes were brought forward, have serious implications for both short-term and long-term economic prospects. To me, tax measures which encourage individuals and businesses to invest for future economic return are not loopholes but are necessary and legitimate incentive devices.

The federal proposals to reduce significantly provincial transfers are another serious concern.

Mr. Nixon: Did the minister pay $2,000 for this livery?

Hon. F. S. Miller: This is not printed in my new type.

Mr. Nixon: What a waste of tax money.

Mr. Stokes: I am glad you are treating this with the levity it deserves.

The Deputy Speaker: Yes, I thank the member for Lake Nipigon. Would the Treasurer please continue?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The members of this House have been kept fully informed on developments in respect of the negotiations on new fiscal arrangements.

I believe something quite remarkable was achieved in the past two weeks, which should not have been missed by Mr. MacEachen. During the ministers of finance meeting the provinces tabled two reports reflecting their collective position, one on equalization and another on established programs financing. I have made arrangements to ensure that all members receive copies of these reports today.

I was impressed during our meeting with the soundness and strength of the provinces' position on fiscal arrangements. It would have been only too easy to cite all the things the provinces could do to enrich their health delivery and education systems in order to ask for considerably more in transfers than under existing arrangements. Instead, all provinces emphasized the integrity of the long-term established programs financing arrangement negotiated in 1976.

In respect of equalization, the provinces raised some legitimate concerns about the proposed formula and pleaded for more time to examine these problems as well as alternative formulas. Yet, they also indicated a willingness to make any agreed-upon formula, once established, retroactive to the beginning of the fiscal year.

2:10 p.m.

Mr. MacEachen did indicate that his officials will consult with their provincial counterparts during the next few weeks to consider alternatives. Although I question the amount of progress that could be accomplished within such a short time, Ontario will of course participate constructively in an effort to persuade Ottawa to reconsider its EPF proposals.

I also told the Minister of Finance that federal interest rate policy and the timing of additional tax incentives, on top of already large oil price increases, showed a total lack of sensitivity to current economic conditions.

A concrete economic strategy for long-term growth, which if properly designed could encourage activity now, was completely lacking. The federal government once again failed to recognize that action on its part to reinvest petroleum revenues in those sectors facing difficult adjustment problems is essential to promoting solid growth prospects for Ontario and Canada.

Rather than simply criticize, I presented to Mr. MacEachen a five-point program to restore confidence in the Canadian economy.

Mr. Renwick: A mélange of unrelated measures.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Listen to what I proposed. How many points will the honourable member disagree with in his riding?

First, a number of the most damaging tax provisions in the federal budget should be withdrawn. In this regard I must emphasize the critical need for continued incentives for investors, small businesses and farmers. I am also concerned about the impact on our steel industry.

Second, the federal government should withdraw its proposals to reduce federal contributions for established programs and, over the next year, without threats, enter into serious discussions with the provinces about program changes desired by the federal government, their associated costs and a mutually agreed upon allocation of those costs.

Third, the Minister of Finance should turn his immediate attention to the developing economic crisis and encourage the governor of the Bank of Canada to allow Canadian interest rates to decline further relative to United States rates.

Fourth, Mr. MacEachen should re-examine, in conjunction with the provinces, the reinvestment of federal petroleum tax revenues to reflect the priority needs of the non-energy sectors of the economy.

Finally, both the federal and provincial governments should work together to monitor the economic situation and respond with joint actions as required. The improvement in the small business development bond program for farmers would be an example.

I feel that Ontario's proposals were endorsed to a large extent by my colleagues. There is great concern among provincial ministers of finance with the federal budget tax proposals and interest rate policy, and unanimous rejection of the established programs proposal.

The degree of provincial consensus is a critical message to Mr. MacEachen. That is why I am quite disappointed with the response of the federal Minister of Finance. Major changes to certain federal policies and substantial new policy actions are urgently needed. To try to discredit provincial proposals as inconsistent is not only incorrect but also a disservice to the people of Canada and their needs.

Ontario's concern on this matter is sufficient that it may be necessary to consider withdrawing from the personal income tax collection agreement to provide an Ontario income tax structure in line with the needs of its people. This is, of course, a matter of major proportion and one I would look at only as a last resort.

Ontario recognizes the need for a federal deficit reduction strategy but, as demonstrated by our own efforts, this strategy has to be sensitive to economic conditions. Economic and fiscal policy must recognize the high social and personal cost of bankruptcies, layoffs and postponed investment. The fight against inflation has to be waged in a way that is equitable, and not on the backs of small businesses, farmers and ordinary working people.

While a reduced federal deficit is an important element in the fight against inflation, it is also vital that we improve productivity. We must encourage much-needed investment activity, not discourage it, if this is to be achieved. Furthermore, it is questionable how much is gained in combating inflation if the result of the federal actions is that the provinces are forced to raise taxes or increase their deficits to maintain acceptable standards of public service.

Major reductions in the federal deficit, at the expense of investment and the provinces, and at a time when our economic performance is slipping, are inappropriate. Mr. MacEachen's problem is that never having had a viable deficit reduction strategy, he is defending his efforts on this front without regard to legitimate concerns about the nature and timing of his policies.

Ontario is trying to be positive and constructive in its suggestions. We feel the need for federal action is urgent. I honestly hope that upon reflection the Minister of Finance will respond positively to the reasonable and necessary suggestions put forward by Ontario and the other provinces.

OMBUDSMAN'S VISIT TO SOUTH AFRICA

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a point of privilege concerning the Ombudsman, Mr. Morand. It has come to my attention the Ombudsman will be visiting South Africa in the new year as a guest of the International Bar Association, not as our Ombudsman. It strikes me that it is totally inappropriate for the Ombudsman to visit that country. It is wrong because he is known as our Ombudsman, because of South Africa's apartheid policies and oppression, and especially because our select committee will be meeting in February to discuss some of the international ramifications of terrorism, Amnesty International, and human rights problems around the world.

Mr. Bradley: How about Cambodia?

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Because he is a servant of the Legislature, and because he reports to this Legislature through you, I would hope that you would discourage him from taking this trip.

The Deputy Speaker: I think the appropriate action would be through the committee of the Ombudsman, so that all members might reflect their concerns directly to him.

TRIBUTES TO F. NORMAN SCOTT

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government I rise on this occasion to pay special tribute to Mr. F. Norman Scott, the Provincial Auditor, who retires at the end of this year after more than 40 years of service to the people of Ontario. He is that shy unassuming man in the Speaker's gallery.

It was the good fortune of the government and people of Ontario when in 1940 Mr. Scott accepted a position with the then Department of Labour. Just a year later he left to join the Royal Canadian Air Force, and following distinguished wartime service, including 18 months as a prisoner-of-war, he returned to the Department of Labour. His career took a new direction when in September, 1952, Mr. Scott joined the Office of the Provincial Auditor as chief audit accountant, subsequently rising to become Provincial Auditor.

Under his guidance and direction, conversion was effected from a pre-audit to a post-audit basis of examining expenditure, and he also shepherded the introduction of the Audit Act, effective on April 1, 1978, which greatly improved the independence of the auditor and broadened his scope and responsibility in many areas.

In recognition of Mr. Scott's distinguished service to his profession, he was made a Fellow of the Ontario Institute of Chartered Accountants. Throughout his career he earned the high regard of his colleagues in the Ontario government, including the civil service and elected members on both sides of the House.

As Mr. Scott now prepares to relinquish his onerous responsibilities at the end of this year, I would like to express to him deep appreciation for his efforts to ensure sound accounting and the utmost integrity in the handling of public funds. Mr. Scott takes with him our warmest good wishes for many happy and active retirement years, secure in the knowledge and satisfaction of a job well done.

At the same time I would like to introduce to the House Mr. Douglas Archer, who will succeed Mr. Norman Scott as Provincial Auditor. As an addendum, following the concept of the act, he will act in consultation with the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid).

[Applause].

Hon. Mr. Davis: Why is the member the only one to applaud?

Mr. Archer is very young. He is 53 years of age, which makes those of us who are 52 even younger, was born in the city of Toronto, attended St. Michael's College High School and he obtained a Bachelor of Commerce from that great university, the University of Toronto, and is a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of this province. He joined the provincial government in 1966, with the Department of Health, as head of internal audit for the medical services insurance plan. In 1971 he was assigned to the Office of the Provincial Auditor as the director, crown agency audit branch.

In 1971 he was named the director of the public accounts audit branch and appointed assistant provincial auditor in 1978.

2:20 p.m.

Prior to becoming a member of the public service, Mr. Archer was with a certain life insurance company known as "a piece of the rock," Prudential. That is the only plug I will give. From 1953 to 1956 he held various internal audit capacities, which saw him assigned to the head office in Newark, New Jersey, and to regional head offices in Minneapolis, Minnesota and Toronto.

As a further indication of his competence, he has been not only a great auditor, one in whom I am sure members of this House can repose great confidence, but has also demonstrated he did take some time away from his responsibilities, because he is married, and he is one up on me, having four daughters and two sons. The new Provincial Auditor is in the gallery to the right of the present Provincial Auditor.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I rise to join with the Premier in wishing Norman Scott our best wishes and a happy and healthy retirement. Mr. Scott became the Provincial Auditor for Ontario in 1974, and I was appointed chairman of the public accounts committee at the same time. It is fair to say the operations of the Provincial Auditor and the public accounts committee are about as arcane and esoteric as anything we do in this Legislature.

I want to assure the members in this House we have indeed been fortunate in having Mr. Scott as the Provincial Auditor. I attended numerous conventions with Mr. Scott over the years of our association, but one incident sticks in my mind. Although I would rather say it happened at the Ontario provincial level, to be fair this incident happened in Ottawa. A federal deputy minister was on a panel and said, "I have all this money in my budget that I do not know exactly how to spend." And our auditor said, in his own quiet way: "Mr. Deputy Minister, that is not your money, that is taxpayers' money."

In the last two weeks there was a gathering in the Legislature to honour Mr. Scott on his retirement. It was interesting to me that a number of the people there were those he had audited and criticized over the years. I think that is really the measure of the man. They appreciated two things about Mr. Scott, and I will be proud if, when I leave this Legislature at some time, somebody will say them about me. In his dealings as Provincial Auditor he has been both a professional and a gentleman. We wish him well in his retirement.

I would like to add a word about Doug Archer, who will be the new auditor after December 31. I have also had an opportunity to work with Mr. Archer over the years. I feel we will again be well served by Mr. Archer in the coming years.

The Deputy Speaker: On behalf of the Speaker's office, we would like to express our great gratitude for the long years of service Mr. Scott has provided to this government in Ontario. On behalf of all members of the Legislature and Mr. Speaker Turner we wish you well, and also on behalf of the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes), who has served along with you for some four years. I know that member would also like to say a few words.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself and members of the New Democratic Party with the sentiments expressed by the member for Brampton (Mr. Davis) and the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid). As you have said, Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to work very closely with Mr. Scott in the position you now hold. All the work he has done has made the Office of the Assembly and indeed this Legislature look very good. I happen to know a lot of the innovation Mr.

Scott has brought to financial accountability in this province has been emulated in a good many jurisdictions, from one end of the country to the other. Not least of all, those procedures turned things around in Ottawa, as a result of some of the innovations made here by Mr. Scott and his staff having been accepted by the former Auditor General, Mr. Macdonnell, and the incumbent there.

As a result of the very diligent and unselfish way Mr. Scott has served this Legislature, the democratic process, and literally everybody in Ontario, all the accolades being cast his way are well-deserved.

While I do not know Mr. Archer as well as I knew Mr. Scott I know of his reputation. I am sure he will follow in Mr. Scott's footsteps in the same way we have been used to under Mr. Scott since 1974.

I would like to join with the Premier and the member for Rainy River in wishing Mr. Scott and his family many years of peace, happiness, harmony, contentment and good budgeting at home.

The Deputy Speaker: As members of the Legislature can appreciate, in terms of ministerial statements, there is a limit. However, under the circumstances, in recognition of Mr. Scott, we will abide an excess of opening statements and now turn to the Minister of Culture and Recreation.

RESETTLEMENT ASSISTANCE FOR POLISH SELF-EXILES

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, Poland and her people are very much on the world's mind this week.

On Monday, my colleague the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) and other members of this House spoke of the current situation. In his statement, the minister pointed out that the provincial government is working with the federal government to help Polish self-exiles resettle here.

Six weeks ago I made a detailed statement on the resettlement question. At that time I indicated the province was taking special measures to help. I also pointed out that the outstanding voluntary agencies in the community are essential to this resettlement effort. In the first 10 months of this calendar year some 1,300 eastern European self-exiles, most of whom are Polish, have come to Ontario.

Over the past number of weeks, my officials have been working closely with representatives from both the Polish Canadian Congress and the Canadian Ukrainian Immigrant Aid Society. Together, we have been developing a plan to deal with the arrival of Polish self-exiles, some of whom are Ukrainians by ethnic origin. These meetings have helped to determine what financial assistance from my ministry is necessary to ensure the most effective types of reception and settlement services are provided.

I am pleased to announce today that I have just approved a grant of $34,000 to the Polish Canadian Congress to assist in voluntary resettlement work.

Our discussions with the Canadian Ukrainian Immigrant Aid Society are in the final stages, and I hope to be announcing our assistance to the society in the very near future. Thank you.

The Deputy Speaker: A further statement from the minister.

TRIBUTE TO JOCELYN MUIR

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, we would like to draw to members' attention that we have with us today in the House a young Canadian whose accomplishments are truly remarkable. Her name is Jocelyn Muir. Earlier this year, on September 4, at the age of 15, she swam Lake Ontario. Jocelyn is the youngest person to have done this. She entered the water at Niagara-on-the-Lake and emerged 32 miles away in Toronto. Despite high winds and choppy waters, her swim took only 15 hours and 56 minutes, just 21 minutes more than Cindy Nicholas's world record.

Jocelyn's crossing was a family affair. Her brothers, sisters and parents all had a role to play. The guiding light behind this young woman's extraordinary endeavour was her coach, Joan Lumsden. It was she who convinced Jocelyn's understandably reluctant parents that the marathon swim was within their daughter's capabilities.

I am sure all honourable members will join with me in congratulating Jocelyn Muir and her coach, Joan Lumsden. I know we all look forward to Jocelyn's future exploits and wish her the very best.

2:30 p.m.

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AND COMMERCIAL RELATIONS STATUTES REPEAL BILL

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, later today I will be introducing a bill that will abolish nine statutes of the Legislature and repeal several sections of three existing statutes. This bill, called the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations Statutes Repeal Act, represents the single largest abolition of laws in one statute in the history of Ontario. It will eliminate laws and specific sections that have become obsolete with the passage of time or no longer serve any worthwhile public purpose or duplicate protections contained in other legislation.

I wish to stress that this will be accomplished without in any way affecting our continued commitment to consumer protection. During the last few months, we have contacted groups that might be affected by statutes slated for repeal. They are most enthusiastic about our initiative to clean up and unclutter the province's laws. I should note that we are continuing our review of statutes under the administration of my ministry to determine what other laws could be abolished.

Perhaps I could quickly give a few examples of statutes on which the sun will finally set in our campaign to reduce unnecessary government meddling in the lives of Ontarians. Under the bill to be introduced today, we propose to repeal the Bills of Sale Act. This pre-Confederation statute was originally enacted by the Reform Party government in 1850. It provides that when goods are sold but not delivered immediately, the seller must register the bill of sale with the government as evidence that he no longer actually owns the goods still in his possession.

Theoretically, a wise buyer should check the government's records to determine actual ownership of goods he is interested in purchasing. However, the act would pose colossal problems if its existence, after 131 years, were to become common knowledge, even among lawyers. Many tens of thousands of wholesale and retail sales would be technically void. Businesses, large and small, would be burdened with yet another layer of costly paperwork. In fact, if we ever dared to enforce this act, commerce in this province would be brought to a halt in a confused snarl of paper held together by streams of red tape.

We propose to repeal the Egress from Public Buildings Act. This statute was first enacted in 1866 by the great coalition government. Perhaps its creation a year prior to Confederation was symbolic of a more open and outward vision among Upper Canadians as it requires that doors in public buildings shall open outwards. It is the position of this government that the most appropriate hingeing of doors should be decided by the fire code as a question of safety.

We propose to repeal the Debt Collectors Act. This Victorian legislation, first introduced by a Liberal government in 1896, prohibits the printing, publishing or use of forms which imitate any form used in small claims court or in any other legal process. This act has changed very little in 85 years and, most significant, has not resulted in a single prosecution.

One reason for this is that violations are most likely to be made by unethical collection agencies, which we prosecute under the Collection Agencies Act. We can improve consumer protection by abolishing the Debt Collectors Act and including a code of ethics in the regulations under the Collection Agencies Act to deal more effectively with unscrupulous agencies that attempt to harass the public by passing off their own forms as intimidating legal documents. Regulations will be updated quickly to keep up with the ingenuity of the unethical collection practices.

We propose to repeal the Consumer Protection Bureau Act. This act, which was passed in 1967, requires the creation of a bureau to disseminate consumer information, promote credit counselling services, investigate consumer complaints and enforce consumer protection legislation. Since then, the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations was created, which is devoted to carrying out the information, educational, investigation and enforcement duties once assigned to that bureau.

We propose to repeal the Paperback and Periodical Distributors Act. The act empowers a government registrar to specify the actual territory in which registered Canadian businesses will distribute foreign periodicals and paperback books. In this respect, the act is anticompetitive and infringes on the consumer's choice.

The other statutes marked for abolition are: the Petroleum Products Price Freeze Act of 1975, the Quieting Titles Act, the Co-operative Health Services of Ontario Assets Protection Act and the Ontario Credit Union League Limited Act. These are in addition to the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act and the Bread Sales Act which are being repealed under separate statutes.

We are also proposing to abolish the licensing of sales agents under the Liquor Licence Act, the Cemeteries Act and the Travel Industry Act. We have found these sections are unnecessary because we already have other, more stringent controls on these industries.

Mr. G. W. Taylor: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I would like you and my colleagues to recognize the members of the municipal councils of Innisfil and Barrie, who have just settled the annexation issue. They are here today to watch the progress of Bill 156. I would like you and my colleagues in the Legislature to recognize them. They are seated in the east gallery.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION BILL

Mr. T. P. Reid: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I rise to bring to your attention another promise that has been broken by the government in regard to the freedom of information act. The minister, who is sitting there looking very lonely and intimidated, as he should, indicated that on December 15 we would have an information act. He then backed off and said that at the very least we would have a white paper. Is the minister going to keep stalling until the next election, or can he tell us when we will have it?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to answer a question on that if it was posed in question period.

FARMERS' COMPLAINTS

Mr. Riddell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: To make it unnecessary for yet another demonstration by the farmers planned for the Legislature tomorrow, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson) must surely have a statement to make in the House today.

The Deputy Speaker: That remains to be seen.

ORAL QUESTIONS

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Kitchener.

[Applause].

Mr. Breithaupt: I hope the members will all be there when I need them.

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Treasurer with respect to the statement he made in the House today. Four of the five recommendations the Treasurer made call for increased federal spending, and at the same time he has endorsed the federal deficit reduction strategy -- indeed he demanded it in his Reaganomics speech in October.

Why does the Treasurer not give the federal government some feasible economic advice instead of seeking some cheap political headlines with threats to pull out of a national income tax system? Does the Treasurer not realize this is the type of inconsistency that is certainly destroying the credibility he has as Treasurer of Ontario?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, if that is so, then it is agreed to by at least nine other provinces -- in fact in the main by all 10. That was the key point I was making. At that conference, the 10 provinces were united on most issues. One of the things one has to recognize is that we are not inconsistent.

Mr. MacEachen has had great increases in his own revenue because of the oil agreement. Thank goodness for that. At the same time, he has allowed his own personal spending to grow at a large rate and has allegedly had a constraint package at the expense of program transfers to the provinces for health and post-secondary education. We counselled him year after year to show some fiscal constraint. His government not only did not do so, it increased the deficit and debt of this country at a rate never before seen in the history of Canada.

Mr. J. A. Reed: You did too.

2:40 p.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Oh, no. At the same time as we were reducing spending below the inflation rate, they were well above. However, there are times in the history of an economy when obviously it is in the interest of the economy to ease up. If one looks at 1975, 1977 and 1980, one will see that we made discretionary changes in Ontario's budget to allow for the fact that the economy had softened. We suggest that is one of his responsibilities.

Mr. Breithaupt: Since the recent report of the Conference Board of Canada shows that Ontario is the sick man of Confederation and that the last two years of the Treasurer's stewardship of the Ontario's economy have confirmed us in tenth and last position, something even he cannot blame on a six-week-old federal budget, what is the Treasurer's reason for suggesting that Ontario has to have its own income tax collection system, which will cost, not his six-year-old figure of about $35 million, but probably more than $100 million in startup and administrative costs?

Hon. F. S. Miller: If the honourable member had read the Toronto Sun or whichever paper quoted me, when they asked me a question they very kindly said after it that I had made a wild estimate of the figure. I told them that. I was told earlier today by my colleague that it was closer to $45 million for the administrative costs of running the program, plus startup costs in the order of about $10 million, as I recall the figure. It costs us almost that much each year for the program the federal government runs for us, something the member may forget.

On the other side of the coin, can the member sit there and watch the tax incentives for small business people get destroyed simply in the interests of tax harmonization? I have to argue that we at the provincial level must have levers open to us to stimulate our economy. If we cannot convince the federal government that its tax changes are wrong, then I certainly must have that option open.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, since Quebec now pays $167 million to raise its own taxes, can the Treasurer explain why, this being a larger province, he is anticipating this kind of commitment to be made some time in the spring to raise his own taxes? Why does Ontario not recognize instead that there are 300,000 people unemployed in the province today and bring in a mini-budget now that will put Ontarians back to work over the course of this winter?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the very reason I chose to make a suggestion to opt out of the tax collection agreement, which I did with great reluctance because I believe in the tax collection agreement, was that the federal government itself did more to cause unemployment in one budget than any budget we have seen since Walter Gordon's day.

Mr. Breithaupt: Since the Treasurer has stated that his primary goal in what would amount to economic separatism is to restore these investment incentives, how can he ensure that the burden of introducing the new tax system with new rules would not really fall effectively on the lower- and middle-income families in Ontario? Will it really be those people who are again going to pay for these incentives to others in his proposed system? If he loses revenue by that decision, how will he make that up without further cutting into his health and educational programs?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. MacEachen carefully left the impression that people who had capital gains reserves in their income tax calculations were at the high end of the scale. We did a little run through our computers which showed that two thirds of the people who have that kind of protection in their income tax have gross incomes of less than $25,000 a year in Ontario. I would also say that in designing any program we would be very careful to see we did protect those people, (

a) who invest in our economy, and (

b) who have need of protection.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, six months ago the Treasurer was admonishing the federal government to cut its deficit --

Mr. Cassidy: That was the final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: It was a new question.

Mr. Peterson: This is a supplementary.

Mr. Cassidy: It is a new question.

Mr. Peterson: He allowed it; I want to ask a supplementary to the Treasurer --

Hon. Mr. Ashe: This is the second question.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Kitchener began with a new question, and the member for London North is now following up with his supplementary.

Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My supplementary question to the minister is this: Six months ago he was advocating that the federal government should cut its deficit. Today in his statement he is saying that major reductions in the federal deficit are inappropriate at this time. In 1980, he had a no-tax-increase budget, as he will recall. When things were far worse, in 1981, his budget of this year had the largest tax increases in modern history in this province.

On the basis of that, does he never wonder why people do not take him seriously as Treasurer of this province or as a spokesman for the financial philosophy of this province?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am going to have to help the member with those lines because they were not coming out too clearly in that question.

I would only suggest that, had the member had the good luck to attend this conference the last couple of days, he would have found the Ontario position was the lead position of the conference. It was recognized that Ontario was effectively leading the combined provincial attack on the federal budget.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I would want to go with a supplementary because we had missed the rotation.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, when the minister says the other provinces agreed with him, is he saying they agreed to his proposal for withdrawal from the federal tax collection system; or is he saying the rest of the provinces agreed to this kind of fiscal arm-twisting in order to ensure that he gets the federal minister to agree to his position?

Is he aware it costs Quebec three times as much to collect its taxes as it does in Ontario?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, it costs them three times as much to do almost anything in Quebec as it does in Ontario. That is one of the measures. Does the member know they have far more civil servants? Does he know what their budget deficit is this year? Come on -- $3 billion plus. Does he know that they are faced with measures from their rating agencies that are going to be traumatic and dramatic in the next few weeks?

INDIAN BANDS COMPENSATION

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretariat for Resources Development. Today, after seven extensions in three and a half years, the final mediation meeting is taking place between the federal and provincial governments, Ontario Hydro, Great Lakes Forest Products Limited and the Grassy Narrows and Whitedog Indian Bands. Will the minister tell us whether there has been any change in his government's commitment, as confirmed on June 26 by the Premier (Mr. Davis) and on June 29 by the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), that all health claims on the $15 million Great Lakes Forest Products obligation will be covered by this government?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the mediations, I would not like to think that they are definitely over as far as today is concerned. There has been a great deal of progress made; 34 items have been resolved and there are nine outstanding items. It is true that Ontario placed a final offer to the natives that is being mediated today. I really do not think it would be appropriate to outline that offer in the House at this time because the mediation process is still going on.

I will be quite prepared to table Ontario's final offer later this week in the Legislature if the mediation process does break down today.

Mr. Breithaupt: The minister may feel it is inappropriate to table the offer but I will tell the minister that it is not inappropriate. We were told by the negotiators of the Indian bands at noon today that the province had reversed its decision on December 9. It will not include adults; it will cover only children and the unborn. Will he explain why the Indians have been told that in order to receive any compensation adults must sign away their rights to future health care?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I would like to redirect that question to the Treasurer, who was involved in the earlier discussions as to compensation to natives.

Mr. Breithaupt: Who is the minister?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am sorry. I was suggesting that the question be redirected to the Treasurer in respect to the earlier assurances that were given to the natives.

The Deputy Speaker: In the standing orders, it is my understanding that redirections are not always allowed.

Mr. Breithaupt: In case the Treasurer has not heard it, Mr. Speaker, if you wish I will repeat the question.

The Deputy Speaker: Under the circumstances, would you be so kind?

Mr. Breithaupt: Will the Treasurer explain to the House why negotiators for the Indian bands informed us at noon today that the province reversed its position on December 9 and it will not include adults for health care coverage over the $15-million commitment, as part of the purchase price that was shared between the two companies?

2:50 p.m.

Can the minister explain why the Indians have been told that in order to receive any compensation and to clean this entire matter up, the adults must sign away their rights to any future health claims as the province apparently is not prepared to cover any of these additional claims beyond the $15 million, even though we were told in the House, not only by the Attorney General but by the Premier, that this was the policy of the government?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, my involvement in this stems from a letter given, I think, to Great Lakes Forest Products Limited, signed on behalf of the government at the time the assets of Reed Paper were being purchased. I stress assets, as opposed to the company. At that time there was some grave doubt as to whether tortious -- I think that is the word -- liability could follow through an asset.

The law was not only a bit vague on that, but there was some concern in the minds of the lawyers advising Great Lakes that the law could be subject to change and that they could, in fact, be responsible for something that no lawyer, at that point, would have foreseen.

It was in the interests of the economy of the province and of the people of Dryden and the whole northwestern area to see the company carry on. Because no reasonable businessman could take on an unpredictable, unknown responsibility, we gave a letter stating we would assume responsibility for claims arising from the assets charged against them in excess of $15 million that arose from the purchase. That permitted the sale to go through and the renovation of the industry, and virtually the salvation of a community.

Since then there has been a great deal of

interpretation as to what comes first. There have been discussions at a number of levels. My colleague and I have talked with them, and so has the Attorney General. They are being dealt with by very competent lawyers at this point. Because they are in a negotiation stage, I find it best to leave the direct negotiations to people who are in the middle of them rather than interpreting them to the member right now.

Our purpose was to protect both the people and the Indians there against unknown and large costs. I do not see any major change in our position. I know we are now dotting i's and crossing t's in the process as to what various commitments mean. Our intention is to see that costs over $15 million are borne by the province.

Mr. Breithaupt: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The Premier of Ontario said on June 26 in this House -- and I quote from page 2135 of Hansard, "I think it is fair to state that it is not the intention of the government to limit liability with respect to mercury poisoning." The Attorney General's comments were on the same line in a point raised on June 29. I have now asked and I have not received an answer with respect to whether that privilege is still guaranteed or whether the negotiators are correct in having told us that we have not received the right information. Now which is it? It is a simple question, sir.

The Deputy Speaker: I am having difficulty with it on the basis of whether it is a point of privilege. In that light, I will now hear from the member for Lake Nipigon on a supplementary to the question.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier, the Treasurer, the Attorney General, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) and the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Ramsay) if they will go back over the agreement originally signed between Reed Paper, the province and the Islington band to see whether there was not an ironclad commitment made by this government to satisfy any of the legitimate claims of our first citizens beyond the $15 million that was adjudged to be the responsibility of the previous company, Reed Paper.

Does the provincial secretary not agree he should get the lawyers out of it and sit down with Mr. Justice Hartt and his tripartite mechanism, and Al Baxter, who has been seconded from the Ministry of Natural Resources, to see what is fair by way of compensation to our first citizens, and accept everything in excess of the indemnity that has been inherited by Great Lakes Forest Products Limited, since he gave an ironclad commitment not only to this Legislature but also to our first citizens over that very serious problem?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, since the member mentioned us all, I would now like my colleague to respond.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, these negotiations are quite complex. If I may correct the record, the Ontario negotiator in this case is Mr. Bob Burgar, and Mr. Burgar rather than Mr. Baxter is dealing with the mediation process we are referring to.

There are actually four different parties involved in these negotiations: Canada, Ontario, Ontario Hydro and Great Lakes Forest Products Limited. It is extremely important that, following the step that is being taken today, the mediation process that is going on today, the native people then in turn -- and I understand they are fully prepared to do this -- meet with Great Lakes Forest Products to try to straighten out some of these points the member is raising.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, will the minister inform this House whether the government is committed, without question, to paying the additional amounts as may be needed to resolve the obligations it has to the adult population as well as the children and those unborn in this health concern? Has he given his negotiators instructions to try to cut back and force a settlement to the agreement required of the adults, or is he simply removing that from the negotiation and saying he is going to stand by the obligation that the Premier has made and that the Attorney General referred to? Which is it?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, as far as my personal knowledge is concerned, and as far as my involvement is concerned in the past three or four months, we are not cutting back on anything. As I say, that is to my knowledge.

IRWIN TOY DISPUTE

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question of the Minister of Labour with respect to the strike at Irwin Toy which has now gone on for six months and which has been provoked because of the archaic labour legislation in this province.

Is the minister aware of the case of Winnie George, who is one of the strikers there, who gets $230 every two weeks when she is working but has to pay $100 for her child care?

An hon. member: Look, here comes Santa Claus.

[Applause].

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Cassidy: I am telling a story about a strike, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Cassidy: I am in order, Mr. Speaker.

3 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker: I am trying to bring you to order. Under the unique situation of having a very distinguished gentleman who is now walking through the chamber, it would no doubt be appropriate for the chair to leave for 10 minutes and resume the debate at an appropriate time. But all things considered in the festive season, and I am sure the distinguished gentleman will be very short and quick as long as all members do not leave a very long list with him as to what they want for Christmas, we will commence now with the question from the member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Given the fact that the employer, Arnold Irwin of Irwin Toy, is refusing to grant a contract despite the fact --

Mr. Mancini: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I want to know if the Santa Claus uniform is union-made.

An hon. member: Yes, that is a union suit.

Mr. Cassidy: I can tell you that the occupant of the uniform, Mr. Speaker, is one of the finest defenders of the labour movement that Ontario has known.

My question to the minister is very simple: Given the adamant refusal of Irwin Toy to grant a contract when all that is being asked is a wage that is 10 cents more than the minimum wage in Ontario, will he give a Christmas present to those strikers and bring in first-contract legislation that will ensure they are able to go back to work with dignity and with a union contract?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, if I may first of all comment on the remark made that this province has archaic labour legislation, I do not accept that, and neither do thoughtful people in society. I mean that seriously. I do not know of any person I have talked to who really seriously thinks we have archaic legislation. As a matter of fact, we are looked upon as having model legislation. I do not think the honourable member does himself or the system any service by making charges like that, which are patently not true.

On the issue of Irwin Toy, anyone would be fooling himself by saying we are not concerned about what is happening at Irwin Toy. The member knows that. He knows how long mediators have been involved in that. He knows that a disputes advisory committee was appointed by this minister to try to help resolve the issue. And he knows that, starting Monday, there is an allegation of unfair labour practices being heard before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

He really does not seem to understand that we feel we have achieved in this province, partly through legislation and partly through remedies that the board has been able to fashion, a method of dealing with first-contract disputes which we think is on a par with any place.

The member's view that first-contract compulsory arbitration would solve the problem is one that I know he has held for a few years. There was a time when he disagreed totally with it. Certainly when it was introduced in British Columbia, let me tell him, the British Columbia Federation of Labour stumped the provinces of the west arguing against it. But then they changed their minds.

If one looks at that legislation out there and how effective it is, one finds that very few of those first contracts are renewed in second agreements. What we are saying here is that the legislation that has been introduced to date has produced a dramatic change in first-contract climate and negotiations and that we feel the board is now fashioning remedies that put us on a par with any province in this country.

Mr. Cassidy: Since the minister refuses to bring in first-contract legislation and since his government's labour laws have failed to get jobs back and to get those workers back to work now for six months, will the minister and the government demonstrate their concern for the strikers at Irwin Toy by declaring an official government of Ontario boycott on Rubik's Cube, Atari electronic games, Strawberry Shortcake dolls, Stomper trucks, the products of Kenner, Tyco or the Ideal Toy Company, Slinky, Transogram, Star Wars models and all of the other products made by Irwin Toy, until the women can go back with a decent contract?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I know the member for Ottawa Centre does not agree with me when I say that the position of the Minister of Labour is to make sure that the mechanisms are in place to deal with unfair labour practices. Such an allegation is being heard by the board next week, and I do not intend to comment further on it.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that the problem in getting first contracts seems to involve an inordinately large number of lowly paid female employees, not just at Irwin Toy but also on previous occasions at Fleck Manufacturing in Centralia and K mart in Windsor, surely the minister must understand by now the need for some changes in legislation or some changes in the ministry's attempts to get first-contract bargaining in these disputes.

What kind of changes do they propose which will allow these disputes to be peaceably settled and which will not allow these kinds of long strikes?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member knows that the number and variety of first-contract disputes involve a great number of citizens. I am surprised that he considers there is a sexist element involved in it. The Labour Relations Act was not drafted to deal with particular sexist problems. It was to deal with problems all people were having, and that is what it is doing.

The member and I have had discussions about this before, and he does not seem to be able to come to understand that if one does accept the principle of first-contract compulsory arbitration, there is a necessary consideration before implementing that to have an element of bad-faith bargaining. What I am saying to the member is that if there is bad-faith bargaining found by the Ontario Labour Relations Board next week --

Mr. Martel: Oh, come on. Get serious.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I cannot predict what they will do, but in the past in the face of those findings, if they so find, they fashioned remedies. I have that kind of confidence in the labour relations system in this province, and so should the member.

Mr. Mackenzie: One final supplementary --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I wish to bring to the attention of the honourable member that under standing orders, traditionally, hats are not to be worn in the Legislature.

Mr. Kerrio: And that ain't no Santa Claus.

Mr. Mackenzie: In all seriousness, Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest to the minister that it might pay him as Minister of Labour to take a little trip out to the picket line at Irwin Toy and talk to the very good men and women who have been in that long, hard strike out there and to see what they think about this wonderful legislation he talks about. Maybe he could have a little personal talk with some of them about what they are going through in trying to establish a first contract. I invite the minister to go out to the picket line at Irwin Toy.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, this minister has not hesitated in the past to talk to strikers and other workers about a variety of issues. I think the honourable member realizes that if a matter is before the labour relations board, this minister has an obligation and that obligation will be fulfilled.

FEDERAL BUDGET

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Treasurer about that other Christmas present, which was introduced a couple of weeks ago, the cut in the maximum rate of taxation from 65 per cent to 50 per cent for people earning more than $25,000 in taxable income per year.

Can the Treasurer explain why it is that all of this government's objections to the federal budget concentrated on loopholes that were mainly of benefit to people earning more than $50,000 a year? Specifically, in terms of the limit on deductibility of interest costs, which the minister now wants to take away and to restore that loophole, 31 per cent of the benefit of that goes to people earning more than $50,000. In terms of income averaging, 21 per cent of the benefit goes to people earning more than $50,000. For income averaging annuities, 87 per cent of the benefit goes to people earning more than $50,000 a year.

Why did the minister seek to restore those loopholes for people in the upper-income brackets and not say a word about the huge tax cut for people in the upper-income brackets which brought their tax rate down to 50 per cent? Why did the minister not propose restoring that rate of taxation and giving a tax cut to ordinary Ontarians instead?

Hon. F. S. Miller: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with the tax reduction to an average rate of 50 per cent at the marginal level, for the simple reason that when tax rates get up around 65 and 70 per cent, there is a lot of tax avoidance by illegal means. It is a simple question of collecting more tax and keeping a more honest tax system and, secondly, leaving the persons with the marginal rates some reason to carry on making investments in this country.

3:10 p.m.

The honourable member talked about income averaging annuities as being something for only the very wealthy, but the truth is that one only buys an income averaging annuity in a year when one's income is high. That is the purpose of it. If one has just sold a farm that one has worked all one's life for and made a $100,000 capital gain, then once in a lifetime, once in 20 years perhaps, one obviously has the right to spread that out over a number of years through some device like that. That is what it is aimed at: one-shot income. It is not for people who, on average, have high incomes.

There would be no reason to use it if, on average, one's income were high. The member knows that. He could not have been a member of the Financial Times staff without understanding that kind of logic.

The honourable member says the tax loopholes were "for people on a high-income level." Is it true that the average person who buys a life insurance policy with a saving element is at the high end? Of course it is not. They are people who for one reason or another may find it difficult to discipline themselves to put money in a savings account and find it safer to put it into a life insurance policy with a savings element. Is the member going to tell me they should be taxed before they get the income from their investment? I think the member is on the wrong wicket.

Mr. Cassidy: I was around long enough in the financial game, before I was here, to know that when a Treasurer comes in making that kind of claim, he is putting widows and orphans to the front to defend tax privileges for people who are wealthy. That is what the Treasurer is doing.

Why has the Treasurer focused on the loophole with respect to capital gains reserves and asked that go back, when 55 per cent of the benefit with respect to capital gains reserves goes to people who are earning more than $50,000 a year and who have only four per cent of the employment income in the country?

Why is the Treasurer so intent on giving loopholes to people in high brackets and then doing nothing about the tax cuts that they got and that ordinary Ontarians did not get in that budget?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I taught school for nine years and I have recognized that not everyone learns the lesson the first time around. Let me try to go through the lesson once more.

If a person is using what the member calls a loophole, that is, the right to spread income over several years, no matter whether it is income averaging annuity contracts or capital gains provisions, it is because his income will not stay at the high level it was at in the year of taxation. It is as simple as that. If one is consistently going to have a high income, it does one no good to do that.

Mr. Cassidy: Can the minister explain all this concern he has voiced on behalf of middle-income Canadians to the point where he is threatening to withdraw from the federal tax system and have an Ontario personal tax system instead?

What does the Treasurer mean, when the budget he introduced last spring specifically raised Ontario health insurance plan premiums, the gasoline tax and the personal income tax and hit the middle-income Ontarians the Treasurer says he is out to protect? How can he be so hypocritical as to say he will have his own income tax system when he did last spring exactly what he is accusing Mr. MacEachen of doing this fall?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I have a responsibility, which the member and the Socialist party would never accept, to try to bring in as much money as I spend. Therefore, I have to use the gamut of taxes to do that. I only change nominal rates when I need to meet spending requirements. The federal government in this budget has chosen to increase my cash requirements by cutting my transfers. I think that is counterproductive.

HAMILTON RAPID TRANSIT DECISION

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. The Hamilton-Wentworth regional council has turned down the Urban Transportation Development Corporation proposal for an intermediate-capacity transit system by a vote of 18 to eight. The system was described by many members of the Hamilton-Wentworth council as being very premature, costly and disruptive and as a system searching for a reason to exist.

Can we assume that the minister will use the $111 million allocated for that project in the Hamilton area to improve local transit service and to improve GO rail service between Hamilton and Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, why does the minister prefer to leave the misconception with the chairman and members of regional council that if they did not accept his rather gratuitous offer of this system, which they did not want and which they rejected last night, they would not have any transit money in the future, notwithstanding the fact that Bill 53 standing on the Order Paper in his own name would increase the subsidy to 90 per cent for the capital costs of electrified buses? Why would the minister leave that misconception with those people?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I did not leave that misconception with anyone.

Mr. Breithaupt: What misconception did the minister leave?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I did not leave any misconception, I say to the honourable smart aleck who would like to be leader.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Is that unparliamentary, Mr. Speaker? If it is, I will withdraw it. I do not think it is.

There was absolutely no misconception like that. As I have said, and as the member has just pointed out, and as I said to numerous members of the media last night around midnight and this morning --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The minister has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The special program funding that was offered for the intermediate-capacity transit system was specifically for an ICTS project. This government will continue to meet the needs of the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth for its transit systems under our normal subsidy program. When the bill on the Order Paper is passed, I hope tomorrow, one of these will be a special subsidy of 90 per cent for electric trolley buses. But that funding will come from the normal municipal transit vote of my ministry's budget.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, with this concern over ICTS, can the minister tell us why the Urban Transportation Development Corporation made the determination that the vehicles for ICTS would have to be finally assembled and manufactured in the Kingston area, thus precluding the manufacture of ICTS vehicles anywhere else in the province?

Mr. Smith: That is not a supplementary.

Mr. Foulds: It is tied in to his answer.

Hon. Mr. Snow: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I answered that question. In any case, it is not a supplementary question to the original question.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us start from scratch. Let us hear the member for Port Arthur again, and then I will make a ruling on whether it was a supplementary.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question may arise out of the answer of the minister as well as out of the original question. The minister himself in answering the question referred to the ICTS; therefore, I asked why, in their determination to build ICTS vehicles, the ministry and UTDC had decided those vehicles would be assembled and built in Kingston, and not anywhere else in the province, thus precluding the building of that kind of future transit car from any other existing facility in Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: We are stretching it, but does the minister have a response?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, as the honour- able member knows -- I believe he sat through five hours of meetings yesterday, and I was there for two and a half hours of those meetings -- this matter was discussed a great deal. It was fully explained to him by the chairman of the board of directors and the president and the board of directors of UTDC why that corporate decision was made. The details leading up to that decision were also explained to him by the Premier (Mr. Davis) and myself at the meeting yesterday afternoon.

It so happens the Hawker Siddeley company did make a submission but, of the five submissions for the development of these cars, it was not successful. That is the long and the short of it.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Mancini: Since the ministry and the UTDC firmly believe that transit service in the Hamilton area must be improved, and that must be one of the reasons why they wanted to go ahead with this particular project, why would the minister reject, out of hand, any other suggestions coming from Hamilton for an efficient, cost-conscious people-mover? Why would he be so intransigent and stick with this particular proposal when the real end of the whole system should be to move as many people as efficiently as possible?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I must answer that, because first of all I have rejected nothing out of hand that Hamilton has proposed.

Mr. Mancini: You rejected my first question. You said no.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I answered the honourable member's first question with a blunt "no" when he asked whether the money committed for the Hamilton ICTS project would be used for other projects. My answer to that is, as I have said many times, that the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth gets funding on a normal basis for 75 per cent of its capital costs. They get funding for their operating costs. They have capital plans that they present to my ministry on an annual basis.

I know they are planning a new transit garage to be built over the next two or three years, I believe. They will be buying additional buses, I am sure, as each transit system is doing. That will be funded out of our normal transit program. It has nothing to do with the special funding that was allowed for the ICTS.

WHITCHURCH-STOUFFVILLE WATER QUALITY

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. In response to test results released by the citizens of Stouffville yesterday, results of tests that were done privately and paid for by those citizens, the minister said the water in the Stouffville area was still perfectly safe.

In view of the fact that those test results clearly showed significant quantities of dangerous contaminants moving out of that dump site which have not been detected by his ministry in its monitoring program; in view of the fact that the citizens have documented serious health difficulties in a number of families along the route that those contaminants are taking; in view of the fact that last Thursday his staff told us, and he concurred, that his test results indicated a declining level of migration of chlorides and sulphates out of that dump site, and these test results show the opposite --

The Deputy Speaker: The question is?

Mr. Charlton: Is the minister now prepared to close the dump at Stouffville and do whatever is necessary to stop all movement of contaminants out of that dump site?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the honourable member has had an opportunity to look at the report of the tests for the citizens' group that were done by Advanced Environmental Systems Incorporated in the United States.

I have, and if he would look at those results carefully and compare them with the earlier results of similar tests done by, probably the same laboratory -- I do not know that, because I did not see the actual copy of the report of the earlier tests, nor did the individuals divulge the name of the laboratory to us, but I assume it was probably the same laboratory that did the earlier tests -- he would see that they confirm what we have been saying all along about the tests that were being used.

He will recall that the earlier series found what the citizens believed to be elevated levels of organo-halogens in two wells; one was the Hutchinson well, I believe, and the other was the Coughlan well, with the Hutchinson well having 31.4 parts per billion and the Coughlan well having 50.2 parts per billion of organo-halogens. If he reads the report, he will see that even the individual who does the tests and comments on the report in the discussion

section indicates it is merely a new methodology and it is one of the survey parameters used for monitoring well samples as an indicator of ground water contamination.

The Deputy Speaker: Supplementary?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I have not finished my answer. This is a serious question the honourable member has asked.

If we look at those earlier results and compare them with this, we will find that in these tests the Hutchinson well is barely at the level of detection of the tests, much lower than the earlier tests indicated, and the Coughlan well has no detectable level in these tests.

We have maintained throughout that this series of tests is not of much value but that the tests we do, where we go into much greater depth and detail for specific contaminants, and where nothing has been indicated, are the next step after the screening tests. This confirms what we have said from the very beginning.

Mr. Charlton: Everybody is clear that these tests are indicators. The minister is taking them as indicators of nothing. Last Thursday, his ministry clearly said that levels of contaminants coming out of that dump site were declining. These test results clearly indicate the opposite. The minister has said there were no wells in the area anywhere near the limit for chloride, for example. We now have one over and one just below. The toxic test results indicate contaminants coming out of the dump.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Can you two not get this sorted out outside of question period? It is a very important question, but we have had a long dissertation from the minister and now we are having a long dissertation from the member and still no question.

Mr. Charlton: If there are no problems and the minister is so sure, why in the case of the Hutchinson well, for example, was he denying yesterday that anybody had warned him against drinking the water? The letter from the health officials clearly told him he should not use the water. Since the ministry was saying last week that levels were declining, why do these test results indicate increasing levels? The minister is still ignoring that fact. Why is he not prepared to look at what the people are asking?

The Deputy Speaker: The question is "why?"

Hon. Mr. Norton: The answer is "because." The honourable member does not understand what he is talking about. I will acknowledge that my response last week or earlier this week, whenever it was, on the contents of the letter from Dr. Slingerland, was based upon a telephone conversation.

At that time, I had not seen the letter. I was told in that conversation his advice was that they restrict the consumption of water. I have since seen a copy, and he does advise them for the time being not to consume the water. I agree that is what Dr. Slingerland communicated in writing to that one family.

I will provide the member with a copy of that letter if he does not have one. Dr. Slingerland goes on to indicate to the Hutchinsons that the tests are indicator tests and what is required beyond that are more specific tests for specific contaminants.

That is precisely what we have been doing all along. We have done literally thousands of tests with the most sophisticated equipment in the world, and there has been no indication of those specific contaminants. We will continue to test as required.

CAR TAX REBATES

Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. Some weeks ago, the Treasurer announced in this House a program whereby the Ontario sales tax would be rebated on stockpiled 1981 motor vehicles. Will the Treasurer report to the House on the success of that program?

3:30 p.m.

Mr. Smith: Oh, so he can make a statement. That is an abuse.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Good question.

Hon. F. S. Miller: It is better than most I get from that side.

Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is that while the data is not yet totally in, about 27,000 plus vehicles were sold in the 23 days, something close to 65 per cent of the inventory in Ontario, as compared with 25 per cent in other provinces.

Mr. Robinson: By way of supplementary: I would further ask the Treasurer whether or not the substantial sales figures recorded on 1981 vehicles during this fall period are predicted to have any adverse effects on the 1982 model year, whether on jobs, production or the sales forecasts?

Hon. F. S. Miller: We probably received more letters of thanks on this program than on any other I have run since I became Treasurer.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Imagine how many you will get when you retire.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The interesting thing is that the sales of 1982 cars in Ontario during that period were better than they were in any other province, which shows a basic fact of retailing; if one gets people into the showroom, one will make a sale. I have been told in many letters -- and I think members on that side of the House must have received some too --

Mr. Bradley: None.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I got a lot of complaints.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Two or three members opposite have privately told me they did.

Mr. Smith: Those were from Quebec.

Mr. T. P. Reid: One guy is going to sue.

Hon. F. S. Miller: But many on this side of the House did. How many of my members received letters?

Interjections.

Hon. F. S. Miller: See what I mean?

The Deputy Speaker: I think we have got the point.

Mr. Smith: Will the Treasurer tell us how many imported cars were sold under this program? Can he also tell us how many cars were brought in to the great relief of dealers in Quebec and other provinces of this country? Did he receive any letters of thanks from the dealers in Quebec who had their lots cleared at the expense of Ontario's taxpayers?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I think of Canada as one country and I am rather pleased to be able to help another province. It happens that virtually every vehicle made in Canada is made in Ontario and the member knows it.

Mr. Smith: You are bringing in your own income tax. If it is one country, why are you doing that?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The answer to the first part of his question is while there were 27,000 domestic cars sold in Ontario, probably 2,000 to 2,500 imports were sold.

The Deputy Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

Some hon. members: There are five more minutes.

The Deputy Speaker: Five more minutes? I am sorry, five more minutes.

Mr. Roy: You should add on five minutes for this foolishness.

CORPORATE CONCENTRATION

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Treasurer and it is in regard to corporate concentration. Is the Treasurer, who is also responsible for the economic life of Ontario, concerned about the number of corporate takeovers in the last few years? Since 1977 there have been a total of 99 corporate takeovers, with a total value of $24.9 billion, which are listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange 300 composite index.

Is the minister not concerned that these takeovers do not do anything for the productive facilities of the province, create no new jobs and no new wealth? As has been pointed out by my colleague, in some cases they are raids on treasuries of corporations that are doing well. Is he prepared to bring in, along with his colleague, any regulations and guidelines in regard to corporate concentration in Ontario?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Competition lies in the domain of the federal government. They have been considering it lately. This province has taken a very positive stand in response to the federal government's intention to take actions in restraint.

In the main we believe more restrictions on competition are counterproductive. We are seeing reorganizations that are quite often necessary if Canadian companies are to survive, because we are in an age when it is very often necessary to lump companies together to do just that. I saw one occur today in western Ontario. I think it was the George White and Sons Inc. machinery company and the McKee Industries Limited machinery company that came together to survive. Those kinds of things should be welcomed.

Also, Canadians have been very active in taking over foreign assets in the last while.

The third thing is that the share prices on the marketplace today for many firms, like Suncor, are far below the replacement value of the asset. Therefore they make those firms very good buys for companies that want to expand.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: A lot of these corporations are controlled by people like the Reichmans, the Bronfmans, Thomson and Argus. A lot of corporate concentration is in the food industry, the newspaper industry, and particularly industries that are not necessarily international in scope and perhaps require a larger corporate body; is the minister not concerned that these corporate takeovers in Canada and Ontario are counterproductive?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Again it is my understanding that the existing laws do have tests that can be used. Admittedly they do not result in many judgements being handed down. Maybe that is a good thing. Maybe the tests are fair and the accusers are a bit aggressive.

Mr. Smith: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Why does the Treasurer not recognize that billions of dollars are being loaned by banks in order to finance these corporate takeovers? In a time of inflation, when the idea of high interest rates presumably is to cool borrowing, does he not realize that while he criticizes governments for borrowing heavily on the market to finance their deficits, the impact of corporations borrowing for no productive purpose other than a takeover is every bit as important in terms of the effect on inflation and the interest rate?

Why is the Treasurer criticizing governments for borrowing on the market but not large corporations -- in this instance for nonproductive purposes, merely for takeovers?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Many of the takeovers do not involve cash and I am sure the member knows that. They involve trades of shares of one corporation with another. It also happens in many cases the vendor receives cash that immediately goes back into the banking system. So I am not as upset about it as the member is.

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the House leaders could have their meeting in some other location.

I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Transportation and Communications. It has to do with the background information that was supplied to the board of directors of Urban Transportation Development Corporation for the meeting yesterday with the officials from Thunder Bay, but not supplied to the delegation that came down from Thunder Bay.

UTDC expressed some concern over the quality control program at Hawker Siddeley, and Hawker Siddeley offered to go over the system with UTDC. They said they would "consider any modifications or refinements that you," UTDC, "may wish to propose." Can the minister say whether UTDC did propose to Hawker Siddeley refinements and improvements in their quality control program?

Hon. Mr. Snow: UTDC was not responsible for writing the proposal put in by Hawker Siddeley. All UTDC could do was assess the proposals that were received from the five companies involved on the basis of submissions that were put in.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Time for oral questions has now --

Mr. Foulds: It is very urgent.

The Deputy Speaker: I know it is, but time has expired. I appreciate that the member for Port Arthur sees this as urgent but time for oral questions has overexpired.

3:40 p.m.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. Barlow from the standing committee on general government presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills with certain amendments:

Bill 156,

An Act respecting the City of Barrie and the Township of Innisfil;

Bill Pr45,

An Act respecting the Armenian Community Centre.

Your committee would recommend that the fees less the actual cost of printing be remitted on Bill Pr45,

An Act respecting the Armenian Community Centre.

Report adopted.

The Deputy Speaker: Shall Bill 156 be ordered for third reading?

Ordered for third reading.

MOTIONS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that standing order 72(

a) respecting notice of committee hearings be suspended for the consideration of Bill Pr21,

An Act respecting the Trusteeship of the Balance Share Warrant of Global Natural Resources Limited by the standing committee on administration of justice on Thursday, December 17, 1981.

Motion agreed to.

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLEMENTARY SUPPLY

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that any orders for concurrences in supplementary supply be included in the order for concurrence in supply for that same ministry.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AND COMMERCIAL RELATIONS STATUTES REPEAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Walker moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Drea, first reading of Bill 201,

An Act to repeal Certain Statutes Administered by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I believe my statement at the opening of the session is sufficient. I will be glad to read it again if members wish.

MORTMAIN AND CHARITABLE USES REPEAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Walker moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Drea, first reading of Bill 202,

An Act to repeal the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I am introducing for first reading in a moment

an Act to amend the Corporations Information Act, which flows from the act we have before us at present, which is the concurrent amendment to the bill that repeals the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act. The amendment repeals subsection 3(6) of the act so that the corporations will no longer be required to file information notices simply because they hold a licence in mortmain.

There are two housekeeping amendments as well. There is a clarification regarding the use of the words "limited," "incorporated" or "corporation." It eliminates any apparent conflict between the Corporations Information Act and the Business Corporations Act. The amendment makes it clear these words may only be used as part of a proper corporate name.

The second housekeeping measure clarifies the intent of the

section of the Corporations Information Act which deals with information notices. It requires that only the latest information notice be retained by a corporation. Consistent with that statement, and married to a large extent to the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act, I will introduce a bill.

CORPORATIONS INFORMATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Walker moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Drea, first reading of Bill 203,

An Act to amend the Corporations Information Act.

Motion agreed to.

CHARITIES ACCOUNTING AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Wells, first reading of Bill 204,

An Act to amend the Charities Accounting Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, this legislation is complementary to the bill to repeal the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act. In 1974, my predecessor the member for Brock (Mr. Welch) wrote to the Ontario Law Reform Commission requesting it to undertake an examination into the utility of the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act and the Religious Institutions Act. The recommendations of the commission on religious organizations have been implemented by the Religious Organizations' Lands Act, 1979. The bill I am introducing today I believe completes the implementation of the commissions report.

Some of the laws in this area date back to feudal times and beyond. The Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act, as it now stands, is complicated, its terms often conflict and it is little understood by the legal profession itself.

The Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act consists of two separate though closely related parts. The first

part concerns the law of mortmain which has to do with the ownership of land by a corporation, whether charitable or not. Basically, these provisions prohibit the holding of land by corporations in perpetuity unless they are authorized to do so by statute or licence. Where they are not so authorized they may obtain a licence in mortmain under the act.

The Ontario Law Reform Commission and the Ontario select committee on company law recommended the mortmain provisions be repealed and the government concurs. However, at the same time, it is necessary to provide some control on land holding by charities to ensure that charities are not used as investment vehicles.

Under the bill to amend the Charities Accounting Act, the public trustee may take action to register a notice against the land of a charity if it is of the opinion the land is not being used and occupied for the charitable purpose for three years, is not required for use and occupation for the charitable purpose, and will not be required for use and occupation for the charitable purpose in the immediate future, although the land remains the property of the charity unless the public trustee takes such action. Where he does so, the land vests in him. The public trustee will then sell the land and apply the proceeds of sale to the charity.

It is further provided that land that has been vested in the public trustee under the existing act which has not been sold will be deemed to have remained the property of the charities or their trustees. This validates the title of third parties to land conveyed to them by charities which lack the title to convey.

3:50 p.m.

CULTURAL. MULTICULTURAL AND RECREATIONAL COUNCIL OF ONTARIO ACT

Mr. Grande moved, seconded by Mr. Wildman, first reading of Bill 205,

An Act to establish the Cultural, Multicultural and Recreational Council of Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, the bill creates the Cultural, Multicultural and Recreational Council to deal with the profits of Wintario and promote cultural, multicultural and recreational activities.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CREDIT UNIONS AND CAISSES POPULAIRES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Walker, moved third reading of Bill 151,

An Act to amend the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make one comment on Bill 151. I must confess to a certain degree of unpreparedness, but I trust this legislation will give the powers that be authority to intercede when necessary in certain of these institutions before members -- or at least those involved -- start to panic and get concerned about the administration of some of these institutions.

I see the former Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea) in the Legislature. I think he is one member in this House who knows what I am talking about. In these very difficult financial situations some of these caisses populaires and credit unions have unfortunately encountered very serious problems.

I am not convinced ministry officials were all that helpful at times, in the sense that they gave proper guidelines for investment of assets of these institutions and guidelines for what to do because of radical changes in interest rates. Consequently, some of these institutions -- some right in my riding, one especially -- ran into serious financial problems. I find that unfortunate.

With the power given in this legislation, I trust the ministry people will accept their responsibility to keep an eye on these institutions and be of some assistance when necessary. I trust they will have in mind as well, when it is necessary to give the body that is created by the legislation -- the body that is going to supervise should there be a problem -- the authority to move in when they think it is necessary, that the body will not have to wait too long and let too much damage happen.

I am pleased this legislation has come forward. The reason I am speaking on third reading is because yesterday on second reading I was involved in other legislation which I find extremely offensive and which is now before a committee --

Mr. Nixon: You will make a speech about that too.

Mr. Roy: Yes, there will be a further speech about that -- with considerable more enthusiasm, I might add. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to have the chance to say a few words on this legislation.

Motion agreed to.

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES (CONCLUDED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I think I was in the middle of what I was saying last night and the honourable member caught me off guard. I would just like to finish my comments about the mental health facilities in southwestern Ontario for children and ask that the Minister of Community and Social Services reply.

Last week, when I raised the case of the 14-year-old girl in Windsor who could not find appropriate placement, the minister seemed to indicate, as I said last night, that St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital for adults was an appropriate setting. I want to go through some of the comments made by some of the professionals in Windsor who have dealt with the case so that the minister might be better informed about the case and may better understand it.

Let me begin by reading from an

article in the Windsor Star on December 9, 1981:

"Directors of local agencies say the case of 14-year-old Mary Bulat is just one glaring example of inadequate social and medical services for mentally disturbed youngsters in the area.

"Dr. James Johnson, director of the regional children's centre and a psychiatrist says, 'This case simply reveals that we don't have any reasonable facilities for people under 17 who need long-term care' ...

"Johnson said the centre has sent two other severely disturbed children to the hospital in the last nine years because no other treatment could be found. 'The first one was a teen-age girl and, to my knowledge, she is still there,' he said."

Just for the minister's information, she was sent in 1972 at the age of 15 or 16, and is now in her mid-20s and still resides in the hospital.

"The children's centre," and we are referring here to the regional children's centre, "only provides long-term care to emotionally-disturbed children under 12 years of age.

"The centre, which closed 14 beds after provincial budget cutbacks in 1979, does not offer any residential care to emotionally-disturbed girls older than 12. Younger girls and boys up to 16 are admitted for a maximum of only about seven months.

"The centre, which provides the most complete child assessment services in Windsor, currently has a waiting list of 300 waiting for treatment and assessment."

The

article goes on to say -- and all these statistics are right from the regional children's centre:

"In a needs assessment report that came out earlier this year, the children's services committee found that one child had waited 1,244 days for psychological help and the services of a social worker from the centre. It also reported the following average waiting periods: 380 days for outpatient psychological help for behaviour and emotional problems, 339 days for outpatient psychology for academic problems, 339 days for outpatient psychiatry for speech and language difficulties, and 303 days for outpatient social work and family problems."

These are the waiting lists for the tri-county area which includes Kent county, Lambton and Essex county for children who need services at the regional children's centre.

"'The community no longer has long-term residential facilities for severely disturbed young teens,' Johnson said. 'Since this situation,'" and they are referring here to Mary Bulat, "'was severe and there were medical and psychiatric problems involved, we were unable to handle it,' Johnson said."

These are quotes from Dr. Johnson that contradict what the Minister of Community and Social Services said last week. "Attempts to place the child at London Psychiatric Hospital and the London Children's Psychiatric Research Institute also failed, he said."

It goes on to say that I criticized them for not using the hard-to-place committee, which I did. Johnson's rebuttal to that was, "But Johnson said he had already talked to officials from all the agencies on the committee and was unable to find a suitable facility.

"She was sent to St. Thomas as a 'last resort,' he said. Agency officials say the case illustrates the effects of an inadequately funded and poorly co-ordinated system of children's services in Essex county.

4 p.m.

"Art Vossen, director of Maryvale and a member of the children's services committee, said city hospitals have facilities for adult psychiatric patients but that the lack of suitable programs for adolescents had long been a problem. 'What do you do for a 14- or 15-year-old?' he asked. 'If you attempt to have them managed in foster or group homes, you're doing them a disservice if they're not set up appropriately.'

"John MacNeil, director of the children's services committee, also said the city lacked long-term facilities for severely disturbed patients.

"Dr. Johnson said funding cutbacks by the Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services have made it more difficult to provide adequate treatment to people needing the services of the regional children's centre. 'We're making acute problems more serious simply because we can't handle them,' he said.

"With an uncomprehensive patchwork of child services variously funded by ComSoc and the provincial Health ministry, the centre is unable to meet the demands put upon it."

The only point I would make is the minister tried to indicate last week there was no problem and tried to indicate this child was appropriately placed in an adult psychiatric centre. I phoned the psychiatric branch of the Ministry of Health and they told me one aspect of St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital was assessment of adolescents. They also made it very clear to me that the only time assessments were to be done at St. Thomas was when it was a last resort and no other facility was available, because it is an adult psychiatric centre. They also pointed out they do not have a program for adolescents.

Hon. Mr. Drea: They want to know who you talked to.

Mr. Cooke: The minister can say there is a program, but if he calls drug therapy and some craft recreation therapy a program, he is contradicting what the people at the hospital and the people in the psychiatric branch of the Ministry of Health have told me.

Hon. Mr. Drea: They want to know who talked to you.

Mr. Cooke: They might want to know who talked to me, but the minister can talk to people from the office of the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) or anyone else at the hospital.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Who did you talk to at St. Thomas?

Mr. Cooke: I have the names and will give them to the minister, but I am not going to read them into the record. That is not the point. The minister pointed out to me last week in his statement that the program there was a recreation program and drug therapy. That is not a program of therapy.

For what conceivable reason did this young girl need to be assessed again? She has been assessed for five years. Her problems are clear. The reason she was sent there by Dr. Johnson -- maybe the minister should talk to Dr. Johnson -- was there was simply no alternative looked into. If the hard-to-place committee should have been used, it should have been used. As the minister knows, that case has now been referred to the interministerial committee in Toronto to look at an appropriate placement for the child.

Also, the children's services committee decided last week that it was setting up a task force to look at a facility that would be for this type of child.

Hon. Mr. Drea: No, that is not correct.

Mr. Cooke: John MacNeil told me that and it was also reported in the local media after the meeting dealing with this child. The fact of the matter is the professionals who were quoted here, Art Vossen, Dr. Johnson and Mr. MacNeil from the children's services committee, all point to the problem.

There are other problems. There will be other cases that will be raised in this Legislature before we adjourn. I hope the minister, instead of looking at this as a political battle, will admit there is a problem that needs to be addressed by providing a facility for children who have serious psychiatric problems. It is not appropriate or good enough to put them in an adult psychiatric centre.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take more than a minute or two if I could have the minister's attention --

Hon. Mr. Drea: That's a cheap shot. I am trying to sign an autograph for the kids.

Mr. McClellan: I did not mean it as a cheap shot.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): The member for Bellwoods has the floor. The Speaker is all ears.

Mr. McClellan: There was a time in this Legislature, not that long ago, when the referral of a child to an adult psychiatric facility was regarded as a major scandal.

I can recall back in 1976 -- I pulled some material out of my files -- a child was referred to the adult ward of the Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital. It was reported in the Globe and Mail on May 12. At the time the member for Lakeshore, Pat Lawlor, issued a statement expressing his concern that a child in this province would be referred to the adult ward of a psychiatric hospital, and he spoke in terms of it being dangerous to the wellbeing and welfare of the child and something totally inappropriate in a civilized community.

He suggested at the end of his statement that he suspected an inquiry into why a child would be sent to an adult ward in a psychiatric hospital might be in order. The very next day, on May 13, the then acting Minister of Health (Miss Stephenson) rose in her place in this Legislature and announced there would be an inquiry. Under questioning from the then leader of this party, Mr. Stephen Lewis, the minister conceded the principal thing to be investigated would be how it had come to pass that in 1976, after all the programs had been established to make sure that children are not sent into adult psychiatric facilities, this could still happen. An inquiry was ordered, and took place.

There was a recognition five years ago that this was not just abnormal but intolerable. It was a scandal. It warranted a public inquiry as to how in the hell this could possibly happen in Ontario.

Last week, we had to listen to the minister, when an analogous case is brought to his attention five years later --

Interjection.

Mr. Cooke: It is analogous. A 14-year-old girl.

Mr. McClellan: Yes, precisely the same kind of problem. The appropriate facilities do not exist, so a child is shunted off into something that is potentially very harmful. The minister makes a long justification instead of trying to find out how this could possibly happen, conceding that it should not happen, and advising us what steps he intends to take, how his ministry intends to organize itself to make sure it does not happen again.

The only comment I make is that simply indicates to me a deterioration in our own sensibility over the course of the last five years. I say with considerable regret that, despite all of the structural changes that have taken place within the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services, we do not seem in this Legislature to have the same sensibility, the same sensitivity, we did five years ago, that would cause us all, collectively, to recognize that children should not be in adult psychiatric facilities.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise with the minister an issue that has been debated at great length in the past, but in the light of what has been happening since November 1, I think it shows once more how this government intends to deal with people who are entitled to social services in Ontario. I am referring to people who are recipients of family benefits.

On November 1, the director of family benefits, Mr. Alfieri, wrote a letter to 1,160 Workmen's Compensation Board recipients informing them that the money they had received as back payments as a result of amendments to the Workmen's Compensation Act in July 1981, would be considered another payment and therefore it would be subtracted from what the Ministry of Community and Social Services considers the basic needs of a person who is receiving family benefits.

4:10 p.m.

This situation is quite devastating for people whose basic needs, as considered by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, are $262 a month. An example is Mr. Iannelli, who appealed the family benefits decision to the review committee last week. I attended the hearing. The matter was that Mr. Iannelli had received a $123.30 lump-sum payment from the Workmen's Compensation Board in arrears for his disability pension. As a result of the letter sent to him by the director of family benefits, the ministry is keeping some money, on a monthly basis, until the $123.30 will be reimbursed.

This is the most callous way of dealing with people who are on family benefits. It is also the result of the fact that the minister changed the regulation, regulation 287, on the same date. In fact, the previous regulation said any income that may come to recipients of family benefits should be considered as part of the needs of the recipients. If there is any increase in income, that should be considered as overpayment, and the ministry should be reimbursed.

Apart from the fact that with $262 we are far below the poverty line by any stretch of the imagination, I think the minister changed that regulation saying not any income but any payment will be considered in assessing basic needs of the recipient and, therefore, payments received from the Workmen's Compensation Board will be considered overpayments and should be reimbursed to the ministry.

I want to tell the Minister of Community and Social Services this is the most invidious way of dealing with recipients of family benefits or other allowances, in this case, Workmen's Compensation Board pensions. I want to tell the minister that payments are made by the WCB which are done not because recipients are entitled to any increase in their benefits, but perhaps because they had paid a medical report. In that case, he considers that payment as an increase of his total income and he subtracts a few dollars from the family benefits recipients.

We tried to convince the director that in the case of Mr. Iannelli, as a gesture of generosity from the ministry, $123 could very well be considered as part of the liquid assets the law allows to the recipient. But the minister said, "No, you have to repay $123."

This is a situation that affects 1,160 workmen's compensation recipients. I think the minister was wrong when he changed regulation 287 and he did it in a really mean way. People who are totally disabled or unemployable according to the definition of the ministry are people who have no other source of income. They do not even receive the minimum sufficient for them to survive on.

The minister has the nerve to take from them a few dollars given to them by the government through the Workmen's Compensation Board, not because it wanted to increase their income but because it was a partial repayment for what they had lost in the past two years since 1979 due to inflation.

In fact, the Workmen's Compensation Board Act amendment was intended to put them where they were in 1979, according to the government. Therefore on July 1, 1981, they were receiving 10 per cent more in benefits because the cost of living had gone up by the same percentage, according to the government. Of course, that is not true, but that was the rationale given by the government. The minister has the nerve to steal that money from them.

Regarding regulation 287, going back to the previous situation which was not satisfactory at all, does the minister not think he should advise his director of family benefits to send a letter of apology to the 1,160 workmen's compensation recipients who also receive family benefits and tell them: "We did that in a moment of madness and we apologize. We will not steal that money from you"?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the member for Downsview first. I think he should apologize to me for the reference to stealing. He knows or ought to know that the law of the Dominion of Canada requires that we treat WCB payments as income. He knows that.

Mr. Di Santo: No.

Hon. Mr. Drea: It is true. The member has raised this many times before and I commend him on his industry on behalf of WCB recipients.

4:20 p.m.

Mr. Di Santo: Why did you change the regulation so surreptitiously?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I think the member should apologize to me for the word "surreptitiously" too. He should also apologize to Mr. Alfieri, because Mr. Alfieri, notwithstanding the law of the land that takes away our sharing portion unless we treat this as payment, worked out the most productive and the most efficient scheme for the WCB recipients to keep the bulk of their money. It is that simple. I want to assure the honourable member -- I am on record and WCB is changing -- I do not believe any recipient of workmen's compensation benefits should get benefits that are so low as to qualify him or her for social assistance.

Mr. McClellan: Why don't you talk to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie)? Where have you been for the last 10 years?

Mr. Di Santo: That is nonsense.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The minister has the floor. You had your opportunity. Let him talk.

Hon. Mr. Drea: The whole point of workmen's compensation benefits, the whole point of such a program, is twofold. One is to replace the income of people while they are injured, on a temporary basis until they go back to work; two is in two phases, either to provide rehabilitation, retraining and so forth so people are able to go back to work, or if they cannot, to provide them with a pension. Where I

part company with the system is that I do not think social assistance payments should be involved by virtue of the fact that those allowances should be much higher than they are.

Mr. McClellan: Why don't you tell the Minister of Labour then?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I have told him that and the member knows that.

The changing of the regulation was a technical one because that regulation was there before, it just specified the new amount. Rather than deducting it month by month from these people, Mr. Alfieri treated the whole thing as income within one month. Therefore, while they lost their allowance for that one month --

Mr. Di Santo: What do they eat that month?

Hon. Mr. Drea: They have their cheque from the WCB. The whole thing was treated as the income for one month, not averaged out month by month. Mr. Alfieri worked out the most beneficial arrangement for them while obeying the laws of the land. About a week ago the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) raised a point about a minor inheritance of $100, I believe, that was received by a person in a chronic care facility in London.

Mr. Nixon: From his mother.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I managed to have the

interpretation of the law changed. Why could I do it within a day? Because it so happened that within 24 hours I was meeting with the federal minister and we discussed this matter over my desk. Madame Bégin was most emphatic that she agreed with my solution and she would arrange that it would be interpreted for sharing purposes for the other provinces as long as it was three figures.

We had such a great conversation and agreed on so many things --

Mr. Nixon: She is a great lady. I should have known the change came from her.

Hon. Mr. Drea: No. I suggested --

Mr. Nixon: Well, from the member for London Centre, through her.

The Acting Speaker: Order. We are speaking to the concurrence.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I say in all candour she agreed to that. She agreed to a few other changes I suggested. She is having some difficulty back in Ottawa, but we will have them together before Christmas.

Mr. Nixon: I understand that. Just like you.

Hon. Mr. Drea: The reason I mention that is to emphasize that it is the law of Canada through the Canada assistance plan --

Mr. Di Santo: It is your law, not the law of the land.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The minister has the floor. Each member has had an opportunity to speak.

Mr. Haggerty: Are you going to send the welfare cheques out a week early?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have. It is not stealing. It is not all of the things that have been attributed to me by the honourable member. That is fine. He can call me names, I do not really mind.

Mr. Di Santo: I did not call you names.

Hon. Mr. Drea: You sure did for about five minutes.

Mr. Di Santo: Those are the facts, not names.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes, okay. But when a public servant of this province obeys the law of the Dominion of Canada and the province, it ill behooves the member to use those words about him.

Mr. McClellan: He was not talking about you, just so we are clear on that.

Hon. Mr. Drea: No, no. The "stealing" referred to Mr. Alfieri.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The minister has the floor. This cutting back and forth must cease.

Mr. Di Santo: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The minister is suggesting I have accused the civil servant because he obeyed the law of the land. I want to correct the record. I said that when the civil servant, Mr. Alfieri, director of family benefits, wrote the letter on July 31, 1981, he was obeying the orders of the minister; orders that were and are wrong.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I would think he had better read his remarks and direct the appropriate things to Mr. Alfieri in the process of the Christmas season. The member does know about Christmas, does he?

Mr. Di Santo: You are the one who didn't know about it, because you stole $120 from a poor person.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Has the minister completed his statement? The minister will proceed to the discussion of the concurrence.

Mr. Di Santo: He knows that is wrong.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Was I called a name, Mr. Speaker?

The Acting Speaker: I did not hear any name calling.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Are you sure?

The Acting Speaker: The minister will proceed.

Mr. Cooke: It may have come to mind, but he didn't call you names.

Hon. Mr. Drea: And a merry Christmas to you too.

The Acting Speaker: I call upon the minister to proceed with his response to the member.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Laughren: Santa Claus was a New Democrat. Did you notice that?

Hon. Mr. Drea: He was kind of thin though.

Mr. Laughren: He is not overfed like the Tories.

Hon. Mr. Drea: No hair.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The minister will proceed with debating on the concurrence issue at hand.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Coming back to the Windsor situation, I do commend the member this time for one thing. I notice the particular person involved was described throughout, except in a quotation from a periodical, as a 14-year-old. I very much regret, and I do not think it was intentional by anybody, that the name was used and by virtue of being used in the Legislature became public property.

The member is scowling at me so perhaps the references to the 14-year-old girl in that context were not intentional.

What has been raised is the question about assessments of adolescents that are done in adult psychiatric hospitals. Let us make it quite plain that adults also include adolescents, because there are assessments that are done under remands from adult court in psychiatric facilities across this province. While those people are listed as part of the adolescent caseload, there is no question that they are adults both in criminal law and for purposes of any psychiatric or mental health treatment or assessment they will receive there or in the future.

The use of health facilities, particularly in southwestern Ontario, is on a relatively limited scale. It is used for assessments and not for long-term residential care. For the particular 14-year-old girl in this situation, I draw to the attention of the member that in the assessment and diagnosis that was done in St. Thomas there are certain very specific, and hopefully very significant, neurological and neuropsychological tests that will be done in CPRI in January.

I do not want to get into the medical matters, and I am sure the member does not either. The particular diagnosis and assessment done there may be most valuable and significant to the future of this particular young person.

Mr. Cooke: So why was she sent to St. Thomas? That is the question.

Hon. Mr. Drea: The whole question of this case began when there were certain allegations made that she had been placed in an adult mental institution in St. Thomas because there was nothing available in the community and that she had also been passed around from place to place. I think I have a right to correct that, because she was not passed around from place to place.

4:30 p.m.

Mr. Cooke: Five programs.

Hon. Mr. Drea: It was not five programs, and my friend knows it. I will name them from memory; I do not even have to read the note. She was in Windsor Western regional children's centre totally. Then they released her to Glengarda and had her coming back on weekends. That is the same program. They were loosening up. They then went to the extent that she was going home on weekends, but she was still under the direct control of the same therapist and the same psychiatrist.

It was suggested she was denied entrance to Maryvale. They were never contacted. The member knows that. London Psychiatric was not contacted.

Mr. Cooke: Why does Dr. Johnson say they were?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I think perhaps the member should ask Dr. Johnson. But we checked over and over again at CPRI in case he perhaps got a secretary or something. The answer is no.

It has also been alleged that the hard-to-serve committee of the Windsor-Essex county children's services committee, which met Thursday, December 10, suggested a new facility.

Mr. Cooke: What?

Hon. Mr. Drea: That they suggested a new facility.

Mr. Cooke: They referred the case down here.

Hon. Mr. Drea: No. They suggested a task force for a new facility. Let me read the minute.

"It was also moved by Dr. J. Johnson, seconded by A. Vossen, that the children's services committee immediately establish a task force to develop a long-term residential program for severely disturbed children within an existing mental health centre."

That is not a new facility. That is considerably different, because it is exactly what I said last Friday.

Mr. Cooke: You did not say that.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I certainly did. I read a long statement. I said we had so many psychiatric beds as well as a number of other beds that could be converted on an almost instant basis by locking the doors, by drug therapy and so on and so forth.

Mr. Cooke: Don't be so silly. That's not what we are referring to at all. You are over your head in this ministry.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The minister will complete his statement without the interjections.

Hon Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, you might wish him a Merry Christmas. He is only merry at night.

I want to conclude this matter by reading another page out of this report, because it has been alleged -- not necessarily by the member; there is a good deal of irresponsible media material in this event, which is not the direct responsibility of the member, and I want him to know that I am not accusing, hinting or anything else -- that this family has been completely disrupted and destroyed because nobody will help them, that there never has been any help for them. That has been suggested quite widely. I just want to quote from this report:

"It was agreed by all the participants" -- that is, those at the meetings, all of the social agencies, all the personalities named here, et cetera -- "including the child's parents, that the child had received excellent services to date. All of the services provided in the past by the regional children's centre, Glengarda and the Roman Catholic children's aid society were felt to be appropriate and beneficial to the child."

Mr. Haggerty: Who wrote that?

Hon. Mr. Drea: That is out of here. Then they go on to say, "The child's situation, however, changed significantly recently." I want to skip some lines in here out of fairness; I am not trying to get out of anything but there is some clinical diagnosis in here.

Mr. McClellan: You were not hesitant about that last week.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes, I was. The diagnosis was originally put forward in this House by the honourable member, not by me.

"The child's parents felt unable to maintain her at home even on a very limited basis." I wanted to make that point very abundantly plain.

I think we are very fortunate in this ministry when we are able to use specialized services of adult mental health centres. We are going to continue to expand our own services, particularly in nonresidential areas. We are going to enrich in the psychiatric field, because this is a very difficult and a very long-term area. We want to make the nonpsychiatric treatment centre beds, I guess you would call them, more flexible so they can deal with crises like this.

But we are very fortunate in this ministry to have the active co-operation of the Ministry of Health where, if an assessment is needed, we can obtain very expert services, and in this case they may be very providential.

In closing, on the basis of concurrence in my estimates, I want to thank the two critics and the two health critics who attended and raised points. Indeed, I think they provided considerable input for a new minister. I want to assure them that their suggestions, their concerns, their complaints and even some of the praise will be taken very much into account by this ministry in the ensuing years.

Motion agreed to.

Resolution for supplementary supply also agreed to.

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF CULTURE AND RECREATION

Mr. Edighoffer: I would feel remiss, Mr. Speaker, if I did not say a word or two. It has been quite some time since these estimates have been before the committee; a lot of things have taken place since that time.

Very quickly, I want to make note of the fact that the minister did make some sort of an announcement very recently about the new Canada-wide lottery, which is affecting the 10 provinces. I again remind him of the report from the standing committee on procedural affairs, which I believe I read to him some months ago. I thought he took particular note of that, because in that report this nonpartisan committee reco