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

December 12, 1980

31st Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L140 - Fri 12 Dec 1980 / Ven 12 déc 1980

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FOREST FIRE REPORT

ONTARIO EDUCATIONAL SERVICES CORPORATION

INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF DISABLED PERSONS

MANAGEMENT OF NUCLEAR FUEL WASTE

NEW COMMITTEE SYSTEM

USE OF AMERICAN DICTIONARIES

ORAL QUESTIONS

INTEREST RATES

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

USE OF ASBESTOS IN SCHOOLS

EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES

RAPE EXAMINATIONS

AUTO PRODUCTION

SERVICES TO MENTALLY RETARDED

DIOXIN TESTING

SCA PIPELINE

AID TO PENSIONERS

ONTARIO PRODUCE

FOOD PROCESSING MACHINERY

OPINION POLLS

SUPERMARKET PRICING SYSTEMS

REMBRANDT HOMES

MINISTRY ADVERTISING

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ONTARIO HYDRO AFFAIRS

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTING

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

BUSINESS CORPORATIONS ACT

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT

THIRD READINGS (CONTINUED)

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

MINISTRY OF CULTURE AND RECREATION

MINISTRY OF ENERGY

MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS

JUSTICE POLICY

REPORT

STANDING GENERAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

MINISTRY OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

MINISTRY OF HEALTH

SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY

RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT POLICY

MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY AND TOURISM

MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AND COMMERCIAL RELATIONS

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

MINISTRY OF LABOUR

MINISTRY OF TREASURY AND ECONOMICS

OFFICE OF THE ASSEMBLY (SUPPLEMENTARY)

OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD

MINISTRY OF HOUSING

MANAGEMENT BOARD OF CABINET

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT (CONCLUDED)

SUPPLY ACT

MOTIONS

STANDING COMMITTEES

SELECT COMMITTEES

SUBSTITUTIONS

COMMITTEE TRAVEL

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

SELECT COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

COMMITTEE REPORTS

SUBSTITUTIONS

BUDGET DEBATE (CONCLUDED)

ROYAL ASSENT

PROROGATION SPEECH

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FOREST FIRE REPORT

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a report entitled Forest Fire Management Policies and Operations in the Province of Ontario, an overview that was presented to me at the end of November and now is available in sufficient copies for this tabling and distribution to members, the press and others who no doubt will be interested in it.

This report, which makes 55 recommendations on the assignments I gave them last August, was produced by an independent three-man team made up of forest fire experts from outside our province.

The chairman, Mr. Stan Hughes, was head of forest protection for the province of Alberta for 10 years. The other members were Mr. John MacTavish, who was deputy minister of the Nova Scotia Departments of the Environment and Lands and Forests up to 1979, and Mr. Carl Wilson from the United States, a member of the North American fire study group which has consulted with the US Forest Service, the United Nations and several South American and Mediterranean countries.

I asked these three established experts to review my ministry’s forest fire control program, including our efforts during this past summer’s unprecedentedly severe fire season. This report is the result of their study.

The terms of reference for the consultants were (1) to provide a concise assessment of Ontario’s forest fire control policies, strategies and overall operations relating to the 1980 fire season from a North American perspective, and (2) that the assessment should briefly cover the adequacy of the provincial fire organization, planning and preparedness, allocation of resources relative to risk and values, training standards, mobility of resources, multi-fire occurrence strategy, use of aircraft and water bombing.

In other words, I sought this advice on the entire array of how we go about protecting our province from forest fires.

The review team decided to fulfil its task by providing an overview of the forest fire management policies and operations in Ontario and by offering recommendations to assist our ministry in planning for future years. This report is a painstaking and thoughtful look at the way we should deal with forest fires, particularly in those years when an unusual combination of conditions brings about serious drought and multiple fire occurrences such as happened this past spring and summer.

In response to this report and other initiatives already undertaken within the ministry, my ministry is taking action in two major thrusts.

The recommendations and other points raised in the Hughes report are being intensively and urgently reviewed by a committee headed by Mr. Len Sleeman, director of the aviation and fire management branch, to determine short-run steps that can be taken in time for the 1981 forest fire season.

The same recommendations will also be taken into account by a long-range and comprehensive forest fire management improvement project, which begins on January 1, 1981. A project group consisting of three senior ministry staff members, each highly experienced in forest fire management, will develop plans for an improved fire management system for the province to become effective as early as possible. I hope some of these steps will also be in effect during the fire season of 1981.

Those assigned to this important task are Mr. Bob Elliott, currently district manager of the Chapleau district; Mr. Dick Brady, regional fire management officer for northwestern region and Mr. John Walker, district manager, Geraldton district. These men have been relieved of all their current duties and will be based in Sault Ste. Marie for a three-year period to develop and implement an improved comprehensive fire management system.

As an aftermath of this year’s serious fires, other reviews and studies have been carried out within the ministry. One of these deals with the preparedness of the provincial and regional systems for the early summer outbreaks in the northwestern and north central regions. Another is a more specific report -- an internal board of review to examine and recommend upon what we term Kenora fire 23.

These reports will provide additional useful data to both the short-run and long-run projects to enhance and improve our fire management capabilities.

I wrote to the Honourable John Roberts on two occasions this year -- on July 7 and on September 2 -- in his dual role as federal Minister of the Environment and as chairman of the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers, suggesting a pooling and enhancement of technical resources in the forest firefighting field between the provincial and federal governments. I also recommended increased activity in research and development related especially to detection and suppression efforts.

Mr. Roberts has indicated that he agrees forest fire research and development requirements are national in scope and says he would support discussion of that topic by the council. Most of my colleagues in other provinces have written strongly supporting this initiative.

As I have said in the House and during the recent estimates of my ministry, the efforts made this past summer to deal with forest fires by the members of my staff, the emergency staff hired during the most serious periods, and those from other agencies and ministries who worked with us, are worthy of the highest commendation.

10:10 a.m.

At the same time, our ministry has taken these additional initiatives of reviews by outside experts as well as by ministry staff with the objective of doing everything we can to further enhance our forest fire prevention and suppression activities. Within the limitations of staff and money allocated, we mean to ensure that our entire approach towards protecting lives, property and natural resources from the ravages of forest fires will be as appropriate and of as high quality in the future as planning, expertise, technology and organization can make it.

As an addendum to this statement, Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you and the members of the House that on Wednesday afternoon of this week my senior staff and I received a brief on this topic from the president and executive of the Ontario Forest Industries Association. It is my understanding that the association -- whose members are, of course, intimately dependent upon the forest resources of this province -- is planning its own public release of the brief later today. I will not reveal any of the details of that brief at this time.

In closing, I would simply comment that the submissions constitute a clear, positive and constructive addition to this important review and, in my ministry, we have already instituted measures aimed at giving effect to the association’s recommendations.

ONTARIO EDUCATIONAL SERVICES CORPORATION

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce this morning the establishment of the Ontario Educational Services Corporation. This fulfils the commitment made in the speech from the throne last March.

The new corporation should be seen as an element in the government’s program to stimulate Ontario’s position in international business. Its primary purpose will be to support Ontario’s private sector companies which are conducting business abroad by making available, with government support, the resources of the province’s educational system.

Emerging nations on a wide front are seeking help and assistance with the development of their education systems and training programs. The World Bank alone, for example, is planning to budget $US900 million per year for education and training. It is becoming more and more common that countries in the developing areas of the world want not only equipment, but the training and educational expertise to operate and maintain it. A highway project, a communications system or a petrochemical plant might need operator and maintenance training to support the capital project -- training capability that can be found within Ontario’s educational system.

Educational projects such as new schools and colleges can also be supported by teacher training, curriculum development, space and institutional master planning, and by the provision of experienced Canadian staff at all levels of an institution’s operation. The new corporation will enhance Ontario’s position and indeed Canada’s position in the international marketplace by providing ready access to these resources. There may well be an opportunity also for the corporation to assist overseas countries that are critically short of teachers through the provision of experienced and capable Canadian teachers.

The affairs of the corporation will be guided by a board of directors under the chairmanship of Mr. D. C. McGeachy of London, Ontario, who has had extensive business experience and who has served on the council of regents for the colleges of applied arts and technology for seven years. Other directors will be drawn from education, from government and from people with broad business and international experience. From education there will be Dr. G. A. B. Moore, director of the Office of Educational Practice of the University of Guelph; Mr. K. E. Hunter, president of Conestoga College of Applied Arts and Technology, and Mr. R. G. Dixon of the Ontario Teachers’ Federation.

From government there will be Mr. G. McIntyre, executive director, Treasury division, Ministry of Treasury and Economics; Mr. E. D. Greathed, executive director, Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs; Mr. J. A. Young, president, Ontario International Corporation; Mrs. E. M. McLellan, assistant deputy minister, Ministry of Education, and Mr. T. P. Adams, assistant deputy minister, Ministry of Colleges and Universities. Also on the board will be Mr. D. J. Griffiths, vice-president international, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce; Mrs. J. E. Pigott, chairman of the board of Morrison Lamothe Incorporated; Colonel J.

G. R. Morin, director of dependants’ education, Department of National Defence, and a chief executive officer to be selected by the board.

The corporation will operate with a small core staff, engaging others on short-term contracts as work on various projects dictates. Seed money from government will, in the first year, amount to approximately $400,000.

Because the corporation will be conducting its business with the private sector and is to operate on a cost-recovery basis, it has been established as a business under the Business Corporations Act. The corporation expects to reach self-sufficiency in approximately three years. The operation will be reviewed after one year and again after three years to determine whether the sunset clause, which governs its operations, will apply. At that time, a decision about its continuation will be made.

It is our hope and expectation that this new venture will make a worthwhile contribution to Canada’s position abroad.

INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF DISABLED PERSONS

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, as members know, 1981 was declared the International Year of Disabled Persons by the United Nations. The goal of the year is to promote the enjoyment by disabled persons of the same rights and opportunities as are available to other persons in society. We all have an obligation to make the general physical environment, as well as a full range of social, economic and cultural activities, accessible to disabled persons.

We embrace those guiding principles and, to demonstrate our commitment, we are announcing today the allocation of $12 million for the International Year of Disabled Persons. I would like to point out that this $12 million is in addition to the moneys already allocated by ministries for special projects for IYDP and will be used to initiate programs during 1981 identified as a high priority by disabled people in the community. Our plans for 1981 are a continuation of the commitments we have made in the past.

In 1974, we introduced Gains-D, the guaranteed annual income supplement for disabled persons, to put income directly into the hands of disabled persons so that they could make their own choices. Two years later we introduced a program of funding to municipalities, to make it possible for them to provide transportation services for disabled persons. Two years ago, four demonstration projects of housing with support services got under way.

As members know, Bill 82, dealing with special education and now awaiting royal assent, will ensure that every exceptional pupil in the province receives an education suited to his or her needs and abilities. Although most school boards provide some programs, Bill 82 removes the optional status of special education and makes it the definite responsibility of all school boards to provide special education programs for students.

As well, amendments to the Ontario Human Rights Code now before this House prohibit discrimination on the ground of handicap in all areas of the code. But it is only by individual acceptance of the abilities of disabled people that we will truly be a part of their achievement of equality.

10:20 a.m.

What we have, then, are the projects and programs already in place, a wide range of programs, for 1981 to be undertaken within ministry allocations, and the programs that will proceed during IYDP because of the additional funding of $12 million which has been especially designated by this government for the International Year of Disabled Persons.

Along with the amendments to the Human Rights Code and the new provisions for special education for exceptional children, the decade ahead should take us further in our desire to make it possible for disabled persons to be fully integrated into the community life that the rest of us take for granted.

There are many things that will be done during IYPD, but government itself neither should, nor can it, take on all the responsibilities. Municipal governments, churches, fraternal organizations and individuals will, I know, respond enthusiastically in the year ahead to develop initiatives of their own.

I would like to challenge employers, and unions too, to examine their hiring policies. A job is the key to independence for many of the disabled persons here in Ontario. I would like to challenge churches as well. All too often we are willing to take religion to the people. Why do we not make it possible for disabled persons to come to a place of worship?

In 1981, and the decade ahead, this government will continue its commitment to disabled people. At the same time, we hope that all citizens of Ontario will come to better appreciate that the needs of disabled people are the same as those of all of us and we hope it will be recognized that disabled citizens are equally capable of making important contributions to our society.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I had asked the Minister of Health a few weeks ago about the provision of prosthetic and assistive devices for the handicapped. I trust that this pap we have just heard about the International Year of Disabled Persons does not refer to that, and that the minister is going to have a further statement to tell us he is going to provide these devices.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I indicated at that time in answer to the honourable member’s question that it was my intention and hope to make a statement by the end of the year. Today is December 12, and I still have 19 days within which to try to meet that pledge.

MANAGEMENT OF NUCLEAR FUEL WASTE

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I know it has been the intention of all three parties in the House to debate, before the end of this particular session, the select committee’s report on the management of nuclear fuel waste. Since there will not be an opportunity to hold this debate before the end of the current session, I should like to make a few comments on that report.

The importance of continuing research into the safe and permanent disposal of nuclear fuel waste cannot be overestimated. It is vital to Ontario’s nuclear program and, as members know, electricity is an integral part of Ontario’s overall energy strategy. Furthermore, it is clear that if electricity is to take a larger share of Ontario’s energy market, nuclear power will be of vital importance.

The Canadian program is an important and respected part of the international research effort in nuclear waste disposal. I have every confidence that the concept currently being researched by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited will be developed over the next number of years into a safe and secure method of waste disposal.

I am aware as well that the select committee members are quite familiar with the background to the program, but a very short review may be desirable for the benefit of other members.

May I review quickly the questions of jurisdiction and responsibility? As members are aware, the federal government has jurisdiction over nuclear matters. It assumed this jurisdiction in 1946 when it passed the Atomic Energy Control Act. In exercising its jurisdiction, the federal government established two agencies, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, which is responsible for research and development, and the Atomic Energy Control Board, which regulates nuclear power. As a result, the federal government has the primary responsibility for and has taken the lead role in the Canadian nuclear fuel waste management program.

The province, in acknowledging federal jurisdiction and the lead federal responsibility for nuclear fuel waste management, also takes quite seriously its own potential responsibilities with respect to Ontario Hydro and the broader interests of the people of Ontario. For this reason, the province is directly involved in the Canadian nuclear fuel waste management program.

The Canada-Ontario agreement on nuclear fuel waste management was announced on June 5, 1978. That agreement outlines a phased program for the development, demonstration and implementation of a safe and permanent method of disposing of nuclear fuel waste in deep, stable, underground rock formations. The agreement confirms the federal government’s prime responsibility for the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste.

It requires that there be full consultation between the federal and Ontario governments and their respective agencies and that the prior approval of the government of Ontario be obtained at each step in the program. It ensures that there will be close co-operation and consultation with the affected communities in Ontario during all phases of that program.

At this point, I should mention that, as Ontario Hydro has assured the select committee, the present method of storing spent fuel under water will be secure for several decades, certainly long enough to permit the thorough development and demonstration of an ultimate disposal method.

Having set out this brief background, I would now like to turn to the select committee’s report itself. Let me say, at the outset, subject to some observations which I shall make, I can accept the thrust of the select committee’s recommendations. These recommendations, I might note, relate in many cases to matters which are actively being implemented by the Atomic Energy Control Board, by AECL and by Ontario Hydro or are under consideration within the two governments.

With respect to my few observations, let me turn first to recommendation No. 2 which relates to whether field research efforts should be devoted at this time to an investigation of the so-called soft rocks, such as shale and salt beds. The issue here is a technical one.

The technical judgement of AECL and of such bodies as the Independent Technical Advisory Committee and the federal task force, more commonly known as the Hare committee, is that Canada should concentrate its efforts on hard rock.

Mr. Laughren: That is because it is northern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Welch: No. I think it is important to emphasize this particular point. The technical judgement, in my understanding, has been reached in the full knowledge that there are major programs already well advanced in other countries in a wide variety of other concepts, including shale and salt, the results of which are readily available to Canada through international exchange of information. The current program is focusing where the best technical advice says it should focus, on hard rock.

Let me turn now to recommendation four, which recommends the establishment of a joint federal-Ontario nuclear fuel waste management agency and to recommendations five and six which build on this recommendation. I agree that the merits of setting up such an agency should be evaluated. I will be giving these ideas serious consideration and will be raising it with the federal government.

We are a federal system. We have jurisdictions and responsibilities.

10:30 a.m.

Mr. S. Smith: That is right. All the prosperity is thanks to the minister’s government and everything is bad thanks to them.

Hon. Mr. Welch: We will have an opportunity later today to discuss those points in detail. I look forward to the exchange. The people of Ontario know the record of this administration and will continue to support it in due time.

We have to remember that this is a comprehensive, long-term program stretching many years into the future. As I noted earlier in my remarks, I think the select committee has approached its work in a thorough and generally constructive fashion and I can accept the tenor of the committee’s report.

For this government’s part, I believe its contribution to the Canadian nuclear fuel waste management program has been both positive and productive. It has resulted in a sound research program. It has ensured that while the federal government and its agencies have the prime responsibility and lead role, there will be close co-operation and consultation between the federal and Ontario governments and their respective agencies. As well, it has ensured a free flow of information to the public and close co-operation and consultation with the communities involved.

NEW COMMITTEE SYSTEM

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I wish to indicate to the House an undertaking that has been agreed to by the House leaders for all parties. It is that there be established an ad hoc committee of House leaders, whips and caucus representatives to consider a plan for implementation of the report from the procedural affairs committee entitled A New Committee System.

This procedure is intended to be similar to that followed in early 1977 when our new standing orders were drafted for submission to the House on a government motion. The ad hoc group hopes to be able to draw on the observations that a delegation of the procedural affairs committee will make after its visit to Westminster in February to examine the new committee system there.

For this reason, the order for consideration of the motion to adopt the report of the procedural affairs committee on a new committee system will be carried forward by motion into the next session.

USE OF AMERICAN DICTIONARIES

Mr. Sweeney: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: On Tuesday, November 18, I asked a question of the Minister of Education with respect to the use of American dictionaries in correspondence courses. At that time, I believe I got a commitment from the minister that she would investigate and report back. I have not yet had that answer, and given this is probably the last day, I wonder if the minister could indicate what her investigations revealed.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the matter was investigated and I determined that at the time the original decision was made, the choice for the ministry was between a Canadian hard-cover dictionary that cost approximately $5 a copy and an American paper-cover dictionary that cost 99 cents a copy. There was really very little choice at that time and, unfortunately, the American dictionary won.

However, on January 1, 1981, the dictionaries supplied through the correspondence branch will be Canadian dictionaries, based upon the shorter Oxford and other established Canadian dictionaries and they will be available to all students through the correspondence courses.

ORAL QUESTIONS

INTEREST RATES

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the provincial Treasurer on the matter of high interest rates and their impact on Ontario. Could the Treasurer today provide the answer he did not have yesterday for the Treasury critic? Could he explain why it is that he feels it impossible to find the money, some $100 million, to assist small business and prevent them from becoming bankrupt during this winter of high interest rates and to assist those who hold mortgages to prevent them from the possibility of actually losing their homes during this same period of time?

The Treasurer was able to find $260 million which he is dissipating for the purposes of getting people who are going to buy vans and such to buy them a little earlier. Surely it makes more sense to use the money, would the Treasurer not agree, to assist the people who are caught in this crush of high interest rates? Surely he recognizes that the government of Ontario, with its $17-billion budget, has a responsibility to rescue the small businesses of this province before they go bankrupt?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the problems are not an either/or situation. The $260 million over the two fiscal years, $77 million of which is in this fiscal year and the balance in the next fiscal year, is aimed at stimulating employment -- one of the major problems facing Ontario and Canada, but particularly eastern Canada, right now. If that does not touch many people, I have misread the problems of this economy. Of course, we have to take action to ensure jobs.

Mr. Peterson: You will not even tell us how many jobs you are going to create.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The member likes to think that is a donation or a giving up of revenue by this government. I like to think of it as an investment in opportunity for work. We just estimated today that the federal government itself will earn about $8 million more because of the stimulation of the Ontario economy through those measures. Those measures were aimed at the most pressing problems.

I heard many comments from across the House during the fall session as to what we would do to help workers have jobs. We are taking positive actions with those sales tax cuts. We have proved before that they work.

Mr. Peterson: How many jobs are you going to create? Tell us.

Hon. F. S. Miller: That is a very trite kind of question. I can only tell the member that company after company around this province is hiring people, or not having to lay off because --

Mr. Peterson: Nonsense. You do not even know.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The member wants me to document everything. The fact is unemployment dropped in this province last month, lt dropped ever the month before. It dropped over the year before because of these actions; only two cities in this province had more unemployment in November. Those were London and Windsor. That indicates at least we are tackling one of the major problems in this province, and it is not an either/or situation.

I have suggested and I will be suggesting to the federal minister on Wednesday that this is a national problem. He was asked those questions. At least the press recognizes it is a national question and that the question should be directed to the federal minister. We will be working with 10 other ministers this Wednesday to see whether or not the federal government has room.

I was pleased last night, watching very carefully the responses of Mr. MacEachen to the critic, Mr. Crosbie, on this matter, to see that he had left some room for some action if he saw fit. I hope he is serious in that, and not simply misleading anyone in his response.

Mr. S. Smith: Ontario is in a much more vulnerable position than certain other parts of this nation in terms of the number of jobs that could be lost by the closure of small businesses. We have already reached a record high number of bankruptcies and we lead the country by far in this regard.

Since this government has a responsibility to protect the citizens of this province, and not merely to take credit for what is good and lay blame federally for whatever they do not happen to be pleased about, would the Treasurer admit that the crisis is going to affect Ontario businesses? Would he admit it is his responsibility, therefore, to take at least the $100-million program we proposed and to aid not only farmers, as he has already done, but the small businesses and the home owners of Ontario, irrespective of what other governments happen to be doing or not doing?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, if one goes back to the April budget and looks at the measures taken to help small businesses, they were not all in the form of assistance to pay interest. They were more in the form of reducing taxes paid by small businesses, some of which are not income-related, The capital tax is a good example.

We can go back and look at the number of dollars forgiven by Ontario in that budget where it applied to small business. I think the sum total was around $50 million to $60 million, off the top of my head. That is summing up the effect of the capital gains reductions, the capital tax reductions, plus the credits available to small business where they make capital investments during this year.

Every small incorporated business in this province is entitled to up to $3,000 reduction of corporate tax payable in Ontario because of the actions we took in that budget. That leaves home owners as the major group still to be dealt with.

10:40 a.m.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, supplementary to the Treasurer, based on the impact of high interest rates on the Ontario economy, as put in the question by the Leader of the Opposition. Has the Treasurer seen the latest forecast by the Conference Board in Canada which indicates that at present, for 1980, seven of our 12 industrial sectors, which account for more than 50 per cent of Ontario’s output, are expected to experience output declines in 1980? Further--and this is really significant in terms of the interest rate question-- is he aware that the unemployment rate will rise from its current third-quarter level of 6.9 per cent to an all-time high of 7.7 per cent by the end of 1981?

Given the fact that the increasing interest rates can only make the matter worse, can the Treasurer tell us this morning what he intends to do, (

a) to alleviate the impact of those high interest rates and (

b) to stimulate particular sectors of the Ontario economy?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I have been more aware recently, not so much of the conference board’s comments -- although I see them in capsule form -- but of the response of the Economic Council of Canada in dealing with the same problems. It is very interesting to see that the economic council supported Ontario’s official position in commenting upon the negative effects the federal budget has had on these very factors. Having written its report, it had to revise it and simply say that Mr.

MacEachen’s actions were going to hurt the industrial sectors of Canada’s economy; they were going to increase inflation; they were going to increase unemployment. And these people over here have the gall to criticize us.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I have very serious difficulty understanding the logic of the Treasurer in saying, as he does in a response to a question yesterday in Hansard: “I am implying first it is a Canadian problem; it is not an Ontario problem.” Yet with the sales tax matter the Treasurer took unilateral action in the absence of assistance from the federal government. Why can the Treasurer not take the same approach with some interest relief for people renewing mortgages?

As the Treasurer has just admitted, those people have not been assisted. There is going to be a crisis in this province in the next month or two or three. As long as these rates hold up, and they are expected to go even a little higher, why can the Treasurer not bring in a short-term targeted program to assist those people most in need? It will not be terribly expensive but it will meet a very serious crisis in this province now.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Again, Mr. Speaker, I argue with the member that when it is a national problem, and it does affect Ontario and it does affect individuals, we do have a need to work that kind of thing out with the feds. It is great for the member to ask me to take 100 per cent of the load when I only get one third of the revenue.

Mr. Peterson: You did it with the sales tax.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am not a hypocrite. With my sales tax measures I used Ontario dollars to support Ontario industry and Ontario employees.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of the Environment.

I would ask the minister to consider that given there would appear to be, from his answers yesterday, very little difference between the type of hearing he is proposing in the South Cayuga matter and an environmental assessment hearing -- the differences appear not to be major from his answers to the question which was asked yesterday three times -- and given that, from the events which transpired, it is obvious the minister has misread the intensity of feeling of people about this particular issue, will the minister now accept the suggestion which has been made to have a proper environmental assessment hearing under the act but with a strict time limit of less than one year so that the people will feel they have, in fact, had due process?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: No, I will not, Mr. Speaker, in answer to the leader of the Liberal Party’s first question. Yes, I do understand the intensity of the feelings of the people of that community. I also think that the intensity was heightened by less than the best of motives. I will say that only once. We will make every effort to have the people understand the facts as they are. That will happen in the due process we have established for the community.

Mr. S. Smith: Instead of standing in the House and imputing motives to people, and instead of suggesting the people in the area are somehow wrong to expect the same protection under the act that every other community has expected over the years, would the minister do one of two things?

Will he either admit he has seriously misread the situation or will he explain to the House clearly what the important differences are between his hearings and the hearings which people would recognize as being their right under the act, so that all of us could understand what these vital differences are that are so important he is willing to persist in this policy? Surely, if the differences are not major, it would make more sense to act under the existing legislation with a time limit than to have an ad hoc hearing.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: This is a prime illustration of the leader of the Liberal Party’s total lack of understanding of the environmental assessment process. In the name of justice, one plainly does not put a time limit on that kind of information process. We are not going to put on a time limit or any limit. Do I have an understanding of this process? What I learned yesterday, particularly in my conversation with the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller), is that there is a great need for understanding. I will address that issue today as we sum up in our estimates.

There is no doubt about the great need for understanding. It was the hand of understanding that I put forward on Wednesday of this week that I will extend over and over again. There is nothing that demands the attention of our society more than treating our wastes in a safe, environmentally sound and proper way. That is the dedication of myself and this government.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since the minister has also extended the hand of understanding to the standing committee on resources development and has suggested the committee take a trip with the minister, which will cost several tens of thousands of dollars, to look at sites in Europe, can the minister explain what relevance that has to the committee’s terms of reference which are to look at the adequacy of the alternative hearings?

Hon. Mr. Davis: It has more relevance than a lot of select committees.

Mr. Cassidy: The Premier is very excited. Can the minister explain what relevance that has to the terms of reference of the committee? Is the minister not trying to distract the committee from looking at the question of whether the hearing process will be adequate to protect the people in South Cayuga and the people of the province?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, what that question does is hit at the very heart of this problem. What the committee must do in its deliberations is not to decide what was wrong with the past, wrong as it is and has been, but what can be done for the future and what is the appropriate way of dealing with that problem. The best illustration of building a new world, of building a new concept in our society for chemicals that must be treated to safeguard our health and safety will be by looking at the best facilities in the world.

As I see it, we will improve where possible and copy where it is impossible to improve. There is no more relevant thing for that committee to do than to make a trip to where we think the facilities are the best. If they have a better suggestion we will adopt it. That puts challenges before this House, before the committee. I am hopeful that as the member starts to understand in its true impact what this committee could do for the future generations of our province, for every man, woman and child, he will see that is the way to go and will be glad to be a part of it.

10:50 a.m.

Mr. Riddell: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware that when the NDP referred this matter to the committee and when it drew up the terms of reference, it included a review of the technology? I am wondering how the committee is to review the technology when its members have no idea what we are talking about.

Hon. Mr. Pope: That has never stopped them before.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I am not sure that this will be my last question before Christmas, but I think it would be a great thing if it were this morning. I thought that was a terrific question. I totally agree with the member. We have a spirit of Christmas here already.

Mr. Isaacs: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Forgetting questions from members who cannot read, I would like to return to the original issue of the hearings.

Going over the minister’s original statement of November 25 and everything he has said since that day, it is clear he has not excluded the possibility of a hearing before the Environmental Assessment Board under the Environmental Protection Act. Will the minister consider the possibility of that route and is that, indeed, his final backup position if the pressure is maintained on him?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I am prepared to accept the pressures. I am prepared to make whatever necessary time is required and available to deal with the problem in its entirety. The one thing I am not prepared to do is allow the focus to centre on the ills of yesterday. Should there be any doubt about that? It has been a long and interesting session and that is frequently what has transpired in this Legislature.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Farrell: I can understand that, but what is required now is not to focus on the ills of yesterday.

Mr. S. Smith: They are your ills.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: They are society’s ills and the member knows it. The truth of the matter is, if the leader of the Liberal Party would only take the blinders off just for a few minutes, he would quickly realize that they are problems across North America and, thank God, Ontario does not even come close to the problems of other jurisdictions.

Mr. Cassidy: I cannot help thinking, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of the Environment is part of the legacy of the past, and that is one of the problems we have with this government.

USE OF ASBESTOS IN SCHOOLS

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Education. With respect to her statement yesterday that she is prepared to rely en local school boards for the curbing of the asbestos problems in the schools, does the minister recall the directive that was sent to local directors of education in October, which said specifically that it is essential that all safety precautions be enforced when asbestos work is carried out and which referred specifically to work procedures, protective clothing, protective coverings for walls, the method of disposing of asbestos and the use of warning and danger signs and the final building cleaning procedures?

Given that the Windsor Board of Education has now admitted that it did not follow those recommended procedures and has said that it sees the directives only as guidelines and not as being things it has to follow, will the minister now admit that her reliance on local school boards, like Windsor’s, may be endangering the health and safety of school children and of school board employees in areas where asbestos is present?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, after two and a half years of dealing with the elected representatives in the school boards of this province, I cannot agree with the kind of innuendo the leader of the third party is making. The vast majority of school trustees in this province are extremely responsible human beings. They do not seek that job for personal glory. They seek it because they are interested in children. I do not believe I could ever support the kind of statement the leader of the third party has made.

I believe that in Windsor, that board will be making, if it has not made already, concerted efforts to deal appropriately with the problem of asbestos following the guidelines produced by the Ministry of Education.

Mr. Cassidy: The Windsor Board of Education has admitted it did not respect the guidelines that were laid down by the ministry. The union tells us there is a series of violations; quite specifically almost every one of the directives has been violated. The Ministry of Labour’s occupational health division states that even a very brief exposure to asbestos may cause mesothelioma 30 or 50 years later.

Given those facts and given the danger that school children and school board employees are put into, does this not indicate that the asbestos program should be supervised by the provincial government rather than being delegated to local school boards? Then the minister says, “Well, it is not my responsibility, it is the responsibility of the school boards.”

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I think I said very early that it was a shared responsibility and one I assume because I feel it is important. However, I do hope the leader of the third party is very much aware that he has been living with natural asbestos as a result of the structure of the earth on which he lives for all of his life.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister if there is some confusion over this very important matter of asbestos in the schools and how it is affecting the children in the schools, why does she not contact the Windsor Board of Education and get a very clear overview of what it has done or not done and report back to the House?

Or, since the House is going to adjourn, the minister could possibly write to the members for the Windsor-Essex county area and inform them of exactly what has or has not been done, and whether she is satisfied with all the precautions, investigations and circumstances that have surrounded this matter and have taken place since she issued this particular order to all the boards.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, approximately three weeks ago I did have an opportunity to discuss this matter with representatives of both boards in Windsor. I was assured the procedures had been followed with some care. I can most certainly double check that report which I received.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Speaker, supplementary: Could we have a firm assurance from this minister that she will thoroughly investigate what happened in Windsor -- that they did not follow her guidelines -- and what training they gave to the one employee whom they sent out to do some checking, so that the people of Windsor can be assured that the proper checking will now occur and that the students and the workers are not being exposed to asbestos, particularly in as much as, incredibly, the Windsor Board of Education has now disciplined the employee who did the initial checks for it?

They gave the employee virtually no training in testing or in what to look for, and did not provide that employee with the required safety equipment.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it is the same question. I think I have already answered it.

EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour about the enforcement of the Human Rights Code for people who are looking for jobs.

Can the minister explain why, despite the provisions of the Human Rights Code, seven of the 10 employment agencies that were contacted a few weeks ago by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association here in Metropolitan Toronto were prepared to discriminate against nonwhites, and only one of the 10 agencies refused to do so? Will the minister tell us what action the government is now prepared to take in order to eliminate that outrageous abuse of civil liberties in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I think the member and the House should know that this is a matter that has concerned me and has concerned the Ontario Human Rights Commission for some time.

11 a.m.

I think it was three or four years ago that the Canadian Civil Liberties Association first conducted a survey in which it found the kind of information to which the member is referring. The problem then, as is the problem with the most recent information, was that they themselves admit it was obtained by what is called an entrapment technique and is not therefore deemed by them, as well as by us, to be the kind of way one can go about proving this. That has been the problem all along. How do you find accurate ways of auditing the practices of certain employment agencies when the records that are kept are very sparse? There is just not enough there to check and confirm the charges.

We had an independent review carried out last year and about four or five months ago the director of the employment standards branch spoke to the employment agencies association indicating to them that these practices were unacceptable and that we would be proceeding with a method to try to give us the means of countering it. That is what we are now in the midst of doing. It is necessary for us to have information on employment agencies so that we can audit and determine whether or not there have been offences under the Ontario Human Rights Code and more significantly, under the Employment Agencies Act, because that is where the licence is issued and that is where it has to be revoked.

Mr. Cassidy: Could the minister explain why it took five years of complaints and repeated surveys by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association determining that there is a problem of major proportions, that it continues and that there is habitual readiness on the part of employment agencies to screen out nonwhites when they deal with people who are job applicants, and when the problem has been there for so long, why has the ministry come to grips with it only in the last few months?

Why is the minister not prepared to require a monitoring procedure by the Human Rights Code and to amend the Employment Agencies Act in order to ensure that employment agencies have to produce the information on which monitoring can be based?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Let me reiterate that it is easy to say it is going on. I happen to think there is good substantiation of that, but even the Canadian Civil Liberties Association agrees that the method by which it obtained that information is not acceptable for human rights decisions nor for some decisions under the Employment Agencies Act. It is information obtained by entrapment. Let there be no doubt that it is this government’s intention, it is the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s intention and it is my intention as the minister in charge of the Employment Agencies Act to correct that situation.

Mr. Cassidy: Would the minister not agree that if the best technique of determining whether or not employment agencies are prepared to accept discriminatory job listings is in fact to phone them up and to ask them, and if that practice has repeatedly indicated that willingness exists, then should the employment agencies not be told that technique will be used in the future and be warned that that technique will be used?

And should not the human rights commission start a program of going out, rather than waiting for complaints, which by their nature, can never be filed because job applicants never know whether or not employment agencies are actively discriminating? Why can we not tell the employment agencies that we are going to do this and then go ahead and curb this practice now?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I can only reiterate that we told them very clearly that we have reason to believe there are some practices going on that are unacceptable. The member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) should not shake his head, because this is a problem that I am addressing very seriously. The member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) shakes his head because I understand he has fundamental health problems. That fellow from Bellwoods does not, unless he gets nasty and then he loses control totally. The fellow from Nickel Belt just has a tremor of the head. He says no to everything.

I know that everything is simple and straightforward to the member, but the problem s how to get evidence that one can use in a court or before a board of inquiry. I understand some of that but I do not always accept the suggestions and I suspect the member does not either, because on occasion the member shows some common sense and therefore he could not accept them all of the time. We will have that matter solved, because if those practices are going on we will stop them.

RAPE EXAMINATIONS

Mr. Stong: Mr. Speaker, on November 3, in the absence of the Solicitor General and Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), I asked a question of the Premier with respect to rape investigations. I asked the Premier to name the hospitals which refused to cooperate with the investigative authorities. I also asked him to instruct his Attorney General to lay charges of obstructing justice against doctors who refused to cooperate with investigating authorities, and to instruct his Attorney General to eliminate the use of lie detectors when investigating the victims of rape.

In answer to my question at that time -- and I read from Hansard, page 3992 -- the Premier said: “If I happen to be talking to either the Solicitor General or the Attorney General in the next day or so before he returns from Victoria or Vancouver, I will get that information for the member. If I am not able to do so, I can assure the member I will get a copy of the question to the minister and he will have a full answer for the member on his return.”

The minister has come and gone, and that question has not been answered. In so far as the Premier has not been able to convince his minister to fulfil his assurance, will the Premier now answer those questions and give those assurances on this last day of the session?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I did communicate this concern to the ministry. I must confess I do have a problem in that the Attorney General and the Solicitor General are both suffering from the same problem. They have the flu.

The Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Walker) is here and might have some --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have some material here --

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the honourable member want an answer?

Mr. Stong: I do.

Mr. Speaker: Do have the courtesy of listening then.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have certain material here I would like to assess myself, and I will undertake to communicate if the Attorney General is not well by Christmas. I will get some information to the member before December 25. The provincial secretary may want to reply. If he does not, I will get it to the member before Christmas. I think the Attorney General will be well shortly.

AUTO PRODUCTION

Mr. Bounsall: A question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism, Mr.

Speaker: Since the new year will start off looking very bleak for Windsor auto workers, with the announcement by Chrysler that following the Christmas break there will be a plant shutdown in the car area for two weeks and in the van plant for one, and with all indications that this is just the tip of the iceberg for North American and Canadian auto production, with the Canadian production being well down this year over last, will the minister now stop telling us that everything is going to be okay for the future and develop specific programs to revitalize Canadian auto production and specific employment and assistance programs for laid-off Chrysler workers in Windsor and all other auto workers in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the latter part of the question is not my responsibility. I will deal with the former part. The fact is that when one looks at the automotive sector in North America, Ontario still continues to outperform every other jurisdiction with automotive production.

Mr. Laughren: No. You are wrong.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member knows it is true. Just look at the figures. The figures are absolutely true. What are we looking at now? About 9,000 or 8,000 people on layoff in Ontario as opposed to about 180,000 in the United States. In an industry that is about a 1:10 ratio.

Second, I challenge the member to find another jurisdiction or another government that has as many important initiatives in the auto sector as we have going for us.

I refer, of course, to the auto parts technical centre; to the very many recommendations we have put forward to the federal government in terms of getting further undertakings, under the auto pact; to our initiative in taking a great number of auto parts people to SITEV in Geneva last year; to the fact that we have attracted SITEV North America, the first one ever, to Toronto next year, to make sure that the major automotive parts manufacturers’ decision makers are here in this municipality, in this province; and to the very many efforts currently under way to bring those people to Ontario to look at places to invest.

Windsor is chief among them.

As the member knows, the industrial development commissioner has just returned to this province after a very successful mission overseas to try to attract some -- I hate to say it to the member, but I know he now wants it -- foreign investment in the auto parts sector into his area of the province.

11:10 a.m.

I think too of the extensive promotion campaign we have had to promote the duty remission program all over the world, which is beginning to show some return. There are so many initiatives going on in that particular sector. I simply say to the member that we do have a comprehensive set of initiatives. I would invite him, if he thinks there are any lacking in that sector, to rise and indicate where he thinks they are lacking and we will be pleased to consider them. I suspect he cannot think of an initiative in that sector we have not already adopted.

Mr. Bounsall: Concerning the initiatives asked for and the seriousness of the Chrysler situation, is the minister aware of the feasibility study in progress concerning the sale by Chrysler of its Windsor spring plant to National Auto Radiator? What will the minister do to assist that plant to stay under Chrysler’s jurisdiction, to assist that sale if that is the only way to keep that plant in production and, if that sale has to take place, to ensure that the displaced Chrysler workers will have jobs under the new owners?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I can assure the member that we will use the money we did not spend in an ill-fated attempt to give more money to Chrysler and apply that to whatever constructive proposals can be brought forward, be it the continuation of that plant under Chrysler auspices or under new auspices, to make sure the plant is economically feasible, well-funded and can provide secure employment for all the workers in that area in the future.

Mr. Ruston: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister tell me when he expects to be going ahead with plans for a research and development centre in the Windsor area that he had made in agreement with Chrysler?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, our agreement with Chrysler requires that we do not put up any money until Chrysler begins to put up some money and then we pay our money dollar for dollar. We are in contact with Chrysler to see that their current intentions are. I am informed their current intentions are to go ahead with that facility some time in the next year and a half. Obviously, pending certain other decisions with regard to restructuring the company, which I do not know to be accurate, but I hear about, that facility could be brought into question.

In any case, if that facility is not built we will not be putting in any money. I should add, in the event the facility is not built that will increase the need for the auto parts technical centre. I would expect some of the money that might otherwise have been applied to the Chrysler facility to be applied to an expanded auto parts technical centre.

SERVICES TO MENTALLY RETARDED

Mr. Blundy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. In view of the minister’s commitment made in the House on May 20 that 400 mentally retarded residents under the age of 21 in homes for special care and in nursing homes would be assessed and programs would be started, will the minister now tell us how many of these assessments have been made and how many of these residents are now having the benefit of some programming in these homes?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I am not in a position to give the honourable member a current figure in terms of the specific number of assessments as of today, but I can assure him that the assessments are well under way. There is a series of at least three assessments being done on each individual child involved, and all three phases of those assessments are well under way.

Mr. Blundy: The minister did say that these assessments of their needs would be done by September 30. Therefore, I would like to ask as a supplementary what are the number of children in that group and whether these children at least have had their assessments completed and their programming started?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a repeat of the first question actually.

Mr. Speaker: Yes. Thank you.

Mr. McClellan: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The minister will recall this was a matter raised at length by myself during the estimates debate. May I ask the minister to communicate with both opposition critics as soon as the assessments have been completed and to provide detailed information on the programs which are going to be made available for each and every one of these children?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I certainly will communicate to the honourable members at the time of the completion of the assessments. I expect that will be at some time during the recess of the Legislature.

DIOXIN TESTING

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment on the matter of dioxin testing in Lake Ontario fish. Is it true that the minister is withholding the results of the tests until it is decided what the minister is going to say about the health effects? If it is, does the minister not think that the public has a right to know and to consult with experts outside the ministry? Will the minister release the data on dioxin levels in Lake Ontario fish that he has today, and will the minister release future findings from the laboratory as they become available?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I think I know the reason for that question and I understand the question, but I think it was answered in detail the other day. Of course we will release those findings. That was said here. I think you would agree with me that this is a new facility and it is extremely important that we have the tests done well. It would be just as wrong to have a figure put out that was not accurate, and I am sure the member opposite would be just as appalled as I. If, on the basis of two or three samples, we said it was very low and subsequently had to amend it, that would offend the member.

If on the other hand, it was too high and we had to amend it when the proper sample was completed, then that would be a bad event. Of course we will release those results when the sample size is sufficient to be accurate.

Secondly, on December 19, as I said the other day, this ministry, along with the federal ministry and other agencies of other provinces, will meet so that we can release not only the figures but also the data relative to the significance of those figures to health. It is important not only to know the figures but also to know the relevance of those figures to human health. That is what will be done following December 19. Those figures will always be released to the public, as all of our water sampling figures have been. There has never been any doubt about that at all.

Mr. Isaacs: I am confused by the minister’s reference to sample size. If he is talking about more than one sample from one fish, then it is certainly relevant to test on the basis of multiple samples from a single fish. But if he is talking about sampling the fish in Lake Ontario, then it is going to be a very long time before the ministry will be able to test a truly representative sample. Indeed, the dioxin may not be distributed uniformly among all fish.

If we already have a test which shows fish from Lake Ontario has, let me say just for example, a level of 20 parts per trillion of dioxin, then does the minister not think the public has the right to know that fish was caught in Lake Ontario? If there is one with 20 parts per trillion, there might be another one with 40 parts per trillion, and it might be the one I am going to have for supper tonight.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I am embarrassed. I do not want that to happen. This is far too close to Christmas for any such nonsense. No, let us be serious about this.

What I was saying, and I hope it makes scientific sense, is that when one has such sophisticated new equipment it is extremely important to be sure that the equipment is working appropriately and very accurately. We have done that with water. I think I have tried to update the House all the way along the piece that, first of all, we were doing it with simulated components, then with actual samples of water and now we are into the fish testing programs. But we want to be sure that our measurement methods are absolutely failsafe, 100 per cent reliable.

When we have done that to our satisfaction, regardless of what measurements are there, we will certainly put them out for public consumption. In the meantime, I think I can predict safely that the member can have as many fish as he wants from Lake Ontario. Go ahead.

11:20 a.m.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Does the minister intend to get in touch with the occupational health and safety branch of the Ministry of Labour to get its opinion as to the possible health effects of dioxin found in the amounts in which it has been discovered?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, that is the whole point of the December 19 meeting. As I said in my previous answer, I think it is important not only to know the measurements but the significance of those in a health sense. That is what the December 19 meeting is to do.

Mr. Gaunt: Are they going to be there?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: They will be there and the federal government is going to be there. We think it is very important to have that very well co-ordinated and understood. Just the measurement itself would not be of great significance. The effects on human health must also be thoroughly reviewed to make sure we are dealing with the right standards. That will happen on December 19.

SCA PIPELINE

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Is the minister aware of the statement made last Friday by Mr. Tom Cleary, an officer in the state of New York, regarding dumping of supposedly treated waste into the Niagara River by SCA Chemical Waste Services? The statement was that he will not reopen the hearings just because Mr. Roberts, the federal minister, sent him a telegram or the Ontario minister may have sent a telegram somewhere.

He must have information in writing to show cause for the reopening of the hearings and new evidence that has not been put before that hearing board previously. Is the minister aware of that statement and what is he going to do about it?

Hon. Ms. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly aware of it and we are very disappointed. I am surprised we have not had a better response. I would have thought, since it was their information that there was TNT supposedly on that site, they would have reopened the hearings. I am very disappointed about that. Of course they should have reopened the hearings. That was said there, and it is a very serious thing.

If there was the best of systems, if TNT was on site and an accident occurred, it would not matter. I think that is obvious. We want those hearings reopened. I do not have the evidence that there is TNT there. That was supplied by other sources. We are saying we want to know whether there was or there was not. It is absolutely imperative that we know.

The member for Brock (Mr. Welch) has been pressing on this point and we have made as much effort as we think is humanly possible. I bet the minister of the federal government cannot say he has been in Albany. I do not know; I am just willing to bet on that. I know I have been there, I have pressed it, and I will continue to press it.

Mr. Kerrio: Will the minister take all the evidence he has and will he insist that the evidence the federal government has is put before the hearing officer before closure, given the willingness of that officer to open the hearings if proper evidence is put before him? Will the minister do everything in his power to convince his people and the federal people to get every bit of evidence they have before Mr. Cleary prior to December 20?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I said that previously. Of course we will. That is what it has all been about.

Mr. Kerrio: You haven’t done it yet.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: We cannot do more. We have telegrammed the commission, we have been there and we are saying we want an answer on whether there is TNT on that site or not, yes or no. Only a hearing or direct evidence would tell us that. They have that evidence, yes or no. I do not have it. I hope that is also obvious. They have that evidence and they must tell us whether they have it or not.

I think the member should also be raising a little more hell with his federal member from that area so that he gets in touch with Mr. Roberts as well. We agree it must be answered.

Mr. Kerrio: I have asked for his resignation too.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Now the member is starting to make sense.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, Mr. Speaker, does the minister not feel he is on slightly weak ground in demanding they reopen hearings in the United States into the toxic waste facility on their side of the Great Lakes when the minister will not even hold hearings on a similar facility on our side of the Great Lakes?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, we are having hearings on this side. The truth of the matter is they are more significant hearings than were held on that site there. That happens to be the fact.

It is easy to disguise that a little. Maybe the member would like to be part of those hearings and to put some of the evidence on the record as to where he would locate this facility. He has been very silent on that point.

AID TO PENSIONERS

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Revenue. Will the minister confirm that recipients of family benefits who are eligible for seniors’ tax grants will not receive their cheques until some time in January, even though he has assured the House many times that he is endeavouring to mail out all cheques before the end of this year?

Does he think family benefits recipients should be treated as second-class citizens and put at the end of the line?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Of course I do not think that, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot give the member the guarantee that everyone will get the property tax grant before the end of the year. There are mistakes in some applications, and those things have to be processed. In some cases we are not able to locate the people who have applied. We have tried telephoning; we have written to them; in some cases we are sending people to the door to try to resolve these issues.

I cannot guarantee that everyone will be serviced by the end of the year. There are still 200 to 300 applications a day coming into the ministry -- people who are just now applying. There is no way I can guarantee all of them will be completed by the end of the year.

Ms. Bryden: With regard to the minister’s reply yesterday, when I was not present, to my earlier question about the lack of checks on payments, I would like to ask the minister if he thinks he will avoid the embarrassment of making payments to deceased and ineligible persons if the only check he is making is on a July tape of old age security recipients?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: In my reply yesterday I did not say that was the only check at all. That is the most current file we have -- the one from the old age security, the federal people. We cannot check with a file we do not have. But we are using other means as well.

Mr. Peterson: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Could the minister tell me what response I should give to those people who are phoning me and who have not received their cheques yet? We promised them, on the minister’s advice, they would have them by the end of November, and it is now the middle of December, and it looks as if it will be some time in January before they get their cheques.

How do I respond to those people who say, “My friends received their cheques in September, and I am losing all that interest”?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Mr. Speaker, I suggest the member get in touch with my ministry and we will resolve the matter. However, his other response should be that there was a mistake in their application, and that is the reason they have not received their cheques. With applications we received in which there was no mistake, the cheques have all gone out. The ones that are being processed now are the ones where there were mistakes.

ONTARIO PRODUCE

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. It pertains to the import replacement policy the minister has alluded to from time to time.

At this time of year the student councils of the various schools across the province, in order to raise money, sell oranges and grapefruit to those people living in the school area, Ontario has had the largest apple crop in history and we have millions of bushels in storage. Does the minister not think it would be a good idea if he, in a joint effort with the Minister of Education, were to write to the schools, strongly advocating that they raise money by selling Ontario-grown produce, rather than something grown in the United States?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I can see the honourable member does not have the Christmas feeling within his question this morning. Let me assure the member that, as Minister of Agriculture and Food, I have spoken to quite a number of the student councils and reminded them they should put their emphasis on an Ontario product. But I also agreed with them that, in view of the Christmas spirit, we can overlook situations like this.

11:30 a.m.

Mr. Riddell: Dealing further with the import replacement policy, is the minister aware that in eastern Ontario they cannot grow a sufficient acreage of soybeans because there are not adequate storage facilities --

Mr. Speaker: That is not a supplementary. You have gone from citrus fruit to apples to soybeans.

Mr. Riddell: It is to do with import replacement. It is all good food. I just want money for storage facilities.

Mr. Speaker: It was not a question so the minister does not need to answer.

FOOD PROCESSING MACHINERY

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Tourism.

Mr. Wildman: Now there’s a shrimp.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: If the honourable member hurries he just might get his question in.

Mr. Laughren: It is quite a burden I have to carry here.

I wonder if the Minister of Industry and Tourism could tell me if he is aware of the dramatic increase in the imports of food processing machinery in the last 10 years? Is he aware it has increased by 368 per cent and that, in some sectors, it has increased four and five times within the food processing machinery sector? Last year we had a deficit of $50 million in Ontario alone. Could the minister tell us what he is doing to reverse these increasing imports, to reduce the deficit and to increase employment in this important sector of the Ontario economy?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I want to give a short answer Mr. Speaker. We are aware of those statistics and some policies are being worked on in Treasury and my ministry. The bold new initiatives being undertaken by the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development under the chairmanship of the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) will have some announcements that will knock the member right back on his seat come the new year.

Mr. Laughren: Given that answer by the minister, how can he justify his refusal even to answer letters going back to October 23, 1979, June 13, 1980, July 16, 1980, October 23, 1980, from Showkraft Canada which is attempting to put together a trade show for food processing machinery and asked the minister for a simple endorsement, a sign of support for this trade show? Why does the minister not even have the decency to reply to these letters?

How in the world can he stand up and say he is aware of the problems and is really attempting to do something about them? Could the minister explain why he has not bothered to answer these letters and, finally, when is he going to carry out the promises of the member without a food terminal from Timmins to put a food terminal in Timmins?

Mr. Speaker: The time for question period has elapsed. Do you have a response?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, may I state two things categorically? First, if those letters were addressed to me or my ministry they have not gone unanswered. Secondly, in view of the fact question period has expired, may I say the performance this session of the Minister of the Environment in showing leadership in North America has been absolutely outstanding. I hope members will join in applauding that performance.

OPINION POLLS

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. On November 21, 1980, I asked the Premier a question concerning public opinion polls. The Premier indicated -- he never promises -- that he would give me a response to my question in setting a policy in which his government, using taxpayers’ money to take public opinion polls, would make those public opinion polls public and table them in the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: What is the member’s point of order?

Mr. T. P. Reid: The Premier promised me a response by today, Mr. Speaker, and I have not had it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the honourable member that my position is the same. We are still assessing it.

SUPERMARKET PRICING SYSTEMS

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: Instant Hansard yesterday showed that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations gave an unqualified commitment that he would today answer my question relative to the errors in computer checkout systems. I would put it on record that not only does he not do anything about consumer prices, he does not even answer the questions any more.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the question was so cockeyed that I did not finish reading it until 11:30 last night. I could have given an answer today but I thought the member, for the purposes of his press releases, might like a longer, written explanation on Monday. If the member would get his figures and his facts right in the first place he would get the answers faster.

REMBRANDT HOMES

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, during the discussion of the estimates of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations we had a somewhat lengthy debate on the problems of Rembrandt Homes. On that occasion, the minister undertook to report to this House his solutions of those problems within a week or two or, at the latest, before this House rose. We have not had that statement, and those people have been waiting eight years for solutions.

Hon. Mr. Drea: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I was going to do it in my concurrences. I could not do it this morning for the member because she was not here. I have not been at it for eight years.

Mrs. Campbell: I was here.

Hon. Mr. Drea: The member was not here.

MINISTRY ADVERTISING

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry and Tourism is responsible for either the answer or, in this case, the non-answer to the question that has been on the Order Paper for a number of weeks pertaining to the cost of government advertising. He has asked for more time, officially, under the rules, and that time has expired. Why are we not provided with the information before adjournment? Or perhaps it is available today.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, in order to assemble all of that information it would perhaps cost as much as it would cost to save the entire food processing sector in this province. In any case, my staff has been working on it for several weeks. As seen as it is available the member can have it. But it is taking a great deal of time because we do like to provide very complete and accurate answers.

I should also say that in these kinds of circumstances, as situations change, sometimes the advertising budgets are adjusted. Indeed, sometimes they are reduced. That may not be the case this time, but sometimes they are reduced. In any event, in an effort to get the member full, complete and accurate information, we have been working very hard. It is just not ready today. If the House sits past today perhaps it will be ready by the time we do adjourn.

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Villeneuve from the standing committee on resources development presented the following resolution:

That supply in the following amount and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Natural Resources be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981:

Land management program, $6,422,500.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ONTARIO HYDRO AFFAIRS

Mr. MacDonald from the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs presented the final report on mine milling and refining of uranium ore in Ontario and moved its adoption.

11:40 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member want to adjourn the debate?

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, may I make just two brief comments and then I will be glad to adjourn the debate?

One, I would like to explain that unfortunately we do not have printed copies of this report. It is now at the printer. As soon as copies are available they will be sent to each of the members, but we wanted to table it before the end of the session.

Second, may I remind the members that this is the third report dealing with the whole issue of safety in the nuclear industry. The first one, which has been submitted and debated in this House, was with regard to the safety of the nuclear generation of electric power. The second one was on waste management which the Minister of Energy spoke to this morning and which, hopefully, other things not intervening, we will have an opportunity to debate next year because we have had the assurance it will carry over until the next session.

This is the third one dealing with the front end of the fuel cycle, namely on mining, milling and refining.

Mr. MacDonald moved the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTING

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the standing committee on resources development be authorized to sit today following routine proceedings.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, normally I would have quite a number of other motions but they are not ready yet, so I thought perhaps later in the day we can revert to “Motions.” These are the motions that will allow the committees to sit and state what business they will do and the substitutions and so forth.

Mr. Speaker: Do I take it that, in keeping with the spirit of Christmas, concurrence will be forthcoming? Agreed.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

BUSINESS CORPORATIONS ACT

Hon. Mr. Drea moved first reading of Bill 229,

An Act to revise the Business Corporations Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, this bill is obviously being introduced for first reading. I will say that it does include the so-called Renwick amendment.

You will recall that I informed the house last December that I was making available for comment the proposed revision of that act. The comments were requested by March 14 and the bill was revised to reflect comments received and again made available last July for comment by September 30.

In these public reviews of the proposed bill, comments and submissions were received from individual lawyers, law firms, accountants, businessmen, the corporation legislation committees of the Board of Trade, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario, the Certified General Accountants’ Association of Ontario, the Trust Companies Association of Canada and a committee of the commercial consumer and corporate law

section of the Ontario branch of the Canadian Bar Association.

This committee, which was appointed in March 1979 to review and comment on the initial staff draft of the proposed legislation, worked with the staff on the preparation of the proposed bill.

There is some resistance to change. This is highlighted in the brief of the Board of Trade which has publicly stated, “Enactment of this proposed bill will result in a tremendous burden to all those companies affected in the transition.” To avoid this, the provision regarding transition has been rewritten.

An overwhelming majority of practitioners favour complete revision of the Business Corporations Act with a view to uniformity with the legislation of Canada and the other provinces.

To assist officials of my ministry in reviewing these comments and in revising the proposed bill, a subcommittee of the committee appointed by the commercial, consumer and corporate law

section of the Canadian Bar Association, Ontario branch, was appointed.

These seven lawyers gave unstintingly of their time. Their advice and suggestions based on their knowledge and practical experience in this field has enabled me to introduce this bill knowing that though it may not be endorsed by every lawyer it is endorsed by a representative group of practitioners specializing in company law. I am also confident that it is workable and reflects the latest concepts in corporate law.

We owe these public-spirited lawyers who have volunteered their services and contributed so much to the drafting of the bill our grateful thanks.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a general statement. All you are entitled to on the introduction for first reading is to give a brief outline of the principle of the bill. If you can terminate your remarks in a reasonable length of time, I will allow it.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I did it this way, and I beg your indulgence for it --

Mr. Speaker: It is out of order.

Hon. Mr. Drea: -- because of the long duration of this bill going out for comment and other matters under auspices of this Legislature. I wanted to bring the members of the profession, particularly those who have been so helpful, the ones in this House, up to date on the matter. I will conclude.

To the outside lawyers who contributed so much to the drafting of our bill, I extend our grateful thanks. The chairman was Larry D. Hebb and the other members were Professor Frank Iacobucci, dean of law at the University of Toronto; Mr. Jon Levin; Mr. Brian M. Levitt, who was also secretary; Mr. Richard A. Shaw; Mr. Martin R. Wasserman; and Mr. Brian C. Westlake.

Mr. Martel: I want to speak to the matter you raised, Mr. Speaker, because a precedent has now been set that all of us on the introduction of a bill, rather than just giving the explanatory note, can make a statement. I hope that side of the House is prepared to accept that.

Mr. Speaker: That is why I intervened on this occasion. It is an abuse and I do not want it to be taken as a precedent.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Cunningham moved first reading of Bill 230,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide for mandatory mechanical fitness inspections for motor vehicles in Ontario. Mindful of your admonition, I have nothing further to add.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the answers to questions 398, 42.1, 427 and 432, standing on the Notice Paper. I might inform the honourable members I do have some other answers I will table as they are available before the House prorogues.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 172,

An Act to amend the Municipal Affairs Act;

Bill 177,

An Act to provide for the Safe Use of X-ray Machines in the Healing Arts;

Bill 188,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act;

Bill 190,

An Act respecting Urban Transportation Development Corporation Limited;

Bill 192,

An Act to revise the Toronto Hospitals Steam Corporation Act, 1968-69;

Bill 193,

An Act to amend the Municipal Act;

Bill 201,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act;

Bill 204,

An Act to amend the Executive Council Act;

Bill 205,

An Act to amend the Denture Therapists Act, 1974;

Bill 214,

An Act to amend the Pension Benefits Act;

Bill 215,

An Act to amend the Wine Content Act, 1976;

Bill 216.

An Act to amend the Farm Products Payments Act;

Bill 221,

An Act to amend the Mining Act.

11:50 a.m.

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT

Mr. Roy moved third reading of Bill Pr18,

An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I might just say one or two words before the motion is carried because of the tortuous finality achieved by this legislation. My colleagues from Ottawa West (Mr. Baetz) and Ottawa South (Mr. Bennett) will be pleased to hear that by the passage of third reading today the city of Ottawa will be in a position to require one of the major elements of the bill, an energy statement from developers of commercial establishments or of residential buildings of 25 units or more. With the concessions made by the government and the officials of the city of Ottawa, the city of Ottawa is able to achieve this.

I want to pay special respect and underline the effort put in by the city solicitor, Mr. Hambling, who came down here on at least four or five different occasions to achieve a compromise so that the city of Ottawa could have this legislation. I am very proud this has been achieved, in spite of the best efforts of the member for Carleton East (Ms. Gigantes) to undermine the legislation.

Motion agreed to.

THIRD READINGS (CONTINUED)

Bill Pr18,

An Act respecting the City of Ottawa;

Bill Pr36,

An Act respecting the Town of Midland.

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

MINISTRY OF CULTURE AND RECREATION

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, in the interests of time -- and I understand the minister is not feeling very well -- I will not take very long. I just wonder if the minister could give us some indication of when he expects the revision of the guidelines for capital expenditure under Wintario to be complete? Can he say what effect that will have on some of the ongoing projects that are at different stages, that are looking for further grants from Wintario on the basis not of continuous, but I understand additional work?

These are new projects but they relate to previous projects. There is a situation in my riding where the small municipality of Iron Bridge, with the assistance of this ministry through the Wintario and the Community Recreation Centres Act, built an arena. Those people are now looking to complete a new project to put in artificial ice and a new floor for the arena. It would cost somewhere in the range of $53,000. They are wondering when they can get some idea of when the guidelines will be complete so they will know whether they will qualify.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I would hope the minister in making any announcement with regard to the general policy of capital grants would use some discretion in using it. I hope he would bear in mind the recommendation of the procedural affairs committee with regard to the general overall application of those grants.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, now that the matter has been opened, I feel that the minister, who commands one of the largest ministerial advertising budgets in the government, should have provided an accounting of it. Through the Minister of Industry and Tourism, which is responsible for these matters, he should have provided a full accounting of the millions of dollars that must be under the direction of his ministry, if only for the various and sundry lotteries and games he runs in support of our cultural endeavours.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, in response to the first question raised as to the possible timetable for the continuation of the capital grants program, it is my plan to lay the new program before my cabinet colleagues in mid-January. I would hope when I receive concurrence from them we will be able to make the announcement.

Mr. Roy: I have a bet on, Reuben, that you would bring it forward before the next election.

Mr. Nixon: It will be your last chance.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I hope long before the next election, of course.

I am not able to be very specific at this time as to what the new program will look like. However, I think I can say with some reasonable degree of assurance that many of the features of the new capital program will be quite similar to the present program. The kind of illustration the member gave for continued funding would look to me to be very much the kind of thing we will be able to finance under the new capital program.

In response to the question about advertising, it is true, as has been noted, that the advertising accounts for the lottery programs are very substantial, probably among the highest in the province. But I must stress that this is advertising placed and directed by the Ontario Lottery Corporation. That is a crown corporation and does its own advertising along its own guidelines. If at some time the member wants to have a detailed account as to those figures, I am sure this will be forthcoming.

As far as the criteria and the new methods of administration are concerned, we have taken steps to streamline the program still further. We think that will enable us to make grants very speedily. So I am looking forward to the continuation and to the opening of a new capital program in the new year.

Resolution concurred in.

12 noon

MINISTRY OF ENERGY

Resolution concurred in.

MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I do not see the Attorney General. With respect to concurrence for the Ministry of the Attorney General, may I ask a question of the Provincial Secretary for Justice in the Attorney General’s absence?

Last June, the Ministry of the Attorney General delivered to this House the study of mind development groups and cults. A question was asked of the Premier (Mr. Davis) as to what action the government was going to take on this report and, on June 17, the Premier said the report would be assessed by the minister and would then be coming forward to cabinet for whatever recommendations.

I got the clear impression from the Attorney General when I posed the same question to him a few days later that, at some time in this session, we would be advised as to what he or his ministry was planning to do with that report. We have heard nothing. I wonder if the Provincial Secretary for Justice, as a member of cabinet where, according to the Premier, this issue was discussed, might be able to give me some intimation as to what the plans are for it.

Mr. Speaker: Is there any other member who wishes to make any comments?

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Attorney General is not here. I understand he is not well and I certainly wish him a speedy recovery. There is a rumour that he is convalescing at the Albany Club but, of course, that is just a rumour.

It is slightly more than a year since we debated in this House and defeated a bill which would have established a procedure for citizens’ complaints against police action. There was a very good, solid reason why that bill was defeated. If you recall, Mr. Speaker, it not only set up numerous roadblocks for citizens who had legitimate complaints, but it ensured that the police would continue to investigate themselves.

However, there has remained on the Order Paper a bill which does set out a procedure which, first, involves the citizens directly and allows them to take their complaints directly to a place other than a police station, and which allows for the independent investigation of such complaints. That bill was put forward by my party and stands in my name on the Order Paper, and it has been there for a year. Of course, the result of the inaction by the government is that, for the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto and other urban centres throughout the province who have complaints against police actions, there is still no complaint procedure.

I think the situation is intolerable. Frankly, I do not understand why the government sits so complacently while we continue to have unfortunate incidents occurring within our city and in other cities as well.

I would like to know whether the government intends simply to allow the issue not to be answered and why, when it has been pretty clearly indicated by the House that the government plan was unacceptable, and when there is a very clear alternative sitting on the Order Paper, the government simply cannot adopt that alternative so that the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto can have a citizens’ complaint bureau, which they have long asked for and which numerous government investigations and reports have also said is necessary and important to have in our city?

I am very discouraged by the kind of complacent attitude being shown by the Attorney General. I fully understand and appreciate that the secretariat cannot be held responsible for the actions of the Attorney General. None the less, perhaps he could try to enlighten us as to what the government policy is and whether a proper citizens’ complaint procedure will ever see the light of day.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, may I just briefly join my colleague from Scarborough-Ellesmere in echoing my disappointment about a problem which has been underlined now for at least six or seven years by a number of reports: the Maloney report; the present Ombudsman, Mr. Morand, discussed citizens’ complaints as did the Marin investigation of the RCMP, and so on. It is truly disappointing and I think somewhat shameful of this government to find itself in December 1980 without a bill dealing with this very important problem, at least for the metropolitan area.

It is shameful and somewhat reflective of this government which did not want to compromise just a bit. Had they compromised and taken some of the suggestions by the members of the opposition, they would have a bill here today. I repeat, I am deeply disappointed and think it is shameful on the part of the government that they did not see fit to deal with that problem.

I wish you would convey a further matter to the Attorney General, to whom we wish a speedy recovery. I wish you would convey to him as well that we have had a commitment in this House about new legislation dealing with prescription periods in Ontario. This is not even contentious legislation. This is legislation which would receive wholesale and wholehearted approval on the part of all members in this House and all citizens of Ontario. Again, it is deeply disappointing that in December 1980 we do not see legislation to correct the problem of limitation periods.

I do not have to remind you that in 1980 it is somewhat ironic that we still have archaic situations in Ontario society whereby there is a limitation period of so long in dealing with doctors, with undertakers, or with government. Hence, the public and the citizens of Ontario find themselves in a situation where this inconsistency still exists.

We have had commitments from the Attorney General. We have had law reform reports on the hooks for many years. It is disappointing that, as we close and we pass these concurrences, we still do not have this legislation. There is no excuse. One cannot say that the opposition has in any way impeded progress. We have not done any of this. One cannot even compare this to the citizens’ complaint legislation that we do not have for Toronto. We are all in favour of it and I cannot see any reason or excuse why we did not see this legislation.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments on the Hill report on cults, sects and other groups. I am extremely disappointed that here we have had a report tabled in the Legislature. The ministry was supposed to have studied it. The Premier has given us a firm commitment that it would be assessed by the ministry and they would come down with some action.

The whole purpose of the report was to assist the many parents as well as individuals who have been affected by mind development groups throughout the length and breadth of the province. A Norma O’Donnell has been in my office practically daily ever since her daughter had her mind affected by exposure to one or more of the cults common in bigger metropolitan areas.

12:10 p.m.

I would have thought the government, at this time, after having spent half a million dollars, would have some kind of answer for the parents who are seeking assistance for their children, be they young children or older children. They are looking for help and we thought the government would be concerned and try to assist them. I am extremely disappointed that we have spent this money and absolutely nothing has happened as a result of the report. The report is now going to die and the many people who have been adversely affected are going to continue to be punished.

Hon. Mr. Walker: I would just like to comment on the fact that the Attorney General is not here. He has been quite ill since last Friday and it is anticipated the flu he has will cause him to be incarcerated in his own home for probably the next five to 10 days. We do hope he has a speedy recovery, but it is very unfortunate that he is not here at the moment to respond more fully to the questions that have been posed by the honourable members.

The member for Kitchener-Wilmot and the member for Windsor-Walkerville have raised questions relating to cults and mind development organizations. I think it is fair to say that probably no one in this Legislature despises these groups more than those members who have spoken and we on this side as well.

It is a situation that was addressed by Dr. Hill. I believe the recommendation in the report was that no legislation should be contemplated. However, there were a number of very far reaching recommendations and those have been under active study by the Attorney General, and particularly by his ministry, since the report was received.

Please keep in mind that in the interim the Attorney General has been constantly plagued with the question of the constitution. Practically every waking moment he had between the time the report was received and until just a few weeks ago was occupied by constitutional matters and he spent the entire summer in Victoria, Montreal and Winnipeg working on these matters. I think it is fair to say that some matters have tended to go to the back burner while some of the more important concerns have been addressed.

While I do not wish to take away from the importance of this particular report, I think it is fair to say his time has been preoccupied by other matters of great significance over the past spring, summer and fall.

The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere and the member for Ottawa East raised questions relating to the police bill. All I can say is that it was those two members and their parties who chose to defeat what was a very good compromise bill. A bill was presented to this House by the Attorney General earlier in the year and that particular bill represented a distillation of feeling and had the support of virtually all the organizations in the city that were involved: the Metropolitan Toronto police commissioners, the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association and the Metropolitan Toronto police chief.

Virtually everybody agreed on the way it should go. It was those two members who tried to change that.

Mr. Warner: It was supported by everyone except the citizens.

Hon. Mr. Walker: I think the vast number of citizens supported it. To the extent the members opposed that bill, I suspect the public of this province detected that they are the ones who are not supporting the police while we are the ones who are trying to put forward something that supports the police.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

The Deputy Speaker: What is your point of order? What could be out of order?

Mr. Roy: On occasion the chair has made the Attorney General retract comments that somehow implied that by opposing this legislation we are undermining the police. I think there was a retraction involved in some of the comments made by the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere. I want to put it very clearly on the record that any minister, including the Provincial Secretary for Justice, who tries to put on the record that somehow the opposition does not have faith and confidence in the police and is trying to undermine them by opposing this legislation is distorting the facts. I want to make that very clear and if that was the minister’s inference, he should withdraw it.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order: As my colleague the member for Ottawa East mentioned on an earlier occasion the Attorney General tried that silly nonsense of suggesting that because the opposition party disagreed with what the government wanted we were not supporting the police. I raised it as a point of order and the Speaker at that time asked the Attorney General to withdraw that allegation. The Attorney General did so. I would ask that on this occasion the Provincial Secretary for Justice also withdraw that silly accusation.

Hon. Mr. Walker: I have never heard sillier nonsense in my life than what is coming from the other side. What I said was the public of this province, in my opinion, has come to the conclusion these are the people -- the Liberals and the NDP -- who are undermining the police.

The Deputy Speaker: I have listened carefully and I am sure all members who have spoken have made their points of view heard.

The resolution for concurrence in supply has already been placed before the House at the beginning of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the resolution be concurred in?

Those in favour will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Resolution concurred in.

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister is with reference to the new Highway 8, between Highway 401 and the existing Freeport Bridge in the city of Kitchener. The minister will perhaps recall this project has been ongoing for considerable time. I believe it is called the Highway 8 diversion.

The residents of that area, along that strip of the road, have met with officials of the ministry on a number of occasions, most recently in September 1979. They have indicated their concern, not about the diversion itself but about an access road to that diversion and the amount of noise and other types of pollution that would result if it were placed where ministry engineers want it placed.

They proposed some alternatives to ministry officials but these were rejected. During the winter and summer of 1980 they contacted a number of experts in the environmental field and in the engineering design field. They had planned to come back to the minister and ask for an environmental assessment hearing because their concerns are of an environmental nature. However, recently they discovered quite by accident that on January 23, 1980, an exemption from an environmental assessment hearing was obtained by the ministry from the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott).

These people feel in something of a quandary because they feel they have legitimate reasons to have an environmental hearing. The first two reasons given for the exemption deal with the possibility of resulting delays in construction. The project has been under way for a number of years. It has been one full year since the exemption was requested. I guess the exemption was probably requested before that. There is still nothing happening there.

My point to the minister is that new information has come to light. The residents were not aware the exemption had been requested and obtained. I would ask the minister if he would now ask that this exemption be withdrawn and give those residents the right to have an environmental assessment hearing on their concerns.

12:20 p.m.

I would also ask the minister if he could indicate to the best of his knowledge when this project will now proceed and whether there is sufficient time to hold an assessment hearing. I understand the residents would be quite prepared to have that confined to a short period of time because the factors involved have now been sharply focused and it should not take very long.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat shocked to hear this from the honourable member, but I will have to look into the situation on that particular job. Like many other jobs that were well along in the planning stages when the Environmental Assessment Act became effective on the ministry, exemptions were obtained for these jobs. This was a high priority job. There has been great pressure from the city of Kitchener and the area municipalities to get the job proceeded with. An exemption was requested and obtained. If the member wants us to go back and start from square one on the project, then we will have to look at a probable delay of at least three years.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, may I respond to that?

The Deputy Speaker: No. This is concurrence. We are not in committee.

Mr. Sweeney: We are not asking to review the whole thing.

Resolution concurred in.

JUSTICE POLICY

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a comment.

We were going to let this thing slip through innocuously, but we won’t after listening to the minister’s invective of just a few seconds ago in defending the Attorney General in his blatant and political attempt to try to undermine the opposition in the responsible roles we play in this place and in attempting to say that we, who wanted a bill to protect the citizens and at the same time give some flexibility to the police, by demanding such a bill and by refusing to support the bill brought forward by the Attorney General somehow are showing a lack of confidence or undermining the work of the police.

The Attorney General has tried that stunt before, but I am surprised that the provincial secretary would repeat it again, although I have known him in other instances when he was potentially capable of saying such nonsense.

I want to say to the Provincial Secretary for Justice that this is not the role of the opposition. We have as much faith in the police as he has. At the same time, there are three reports on the book existing for seven or eight years saying that there is a problem and that a new mechanism must be found for citizens’ complaints. One of these people is now the Ombudsman of Ontario and one is the former Ombudsman, Mr. Maloney, and a good Tory at that. The minister should be listening to people like that.

To suggest that we in the opposition who are supporting the recommendations in these reports are somehow showing a lack of confidence in and undermining the police is pure rubbish and the provincial secretary should know better. I think the record should be clear on that point.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, it is rather sad that the government, instead of taking the opportunity to bring in a bill which is desperately wanted and needed by the people of Metropolitan Toronto and other urban centres, would choose instead to try to suggest that the opposition parties are against law and order. What patent nonsense!

Hon. Mr. Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I think the member fully knows I did not say the opposition parties were opposed to law and order. They may well be, but I did not say it. I am inclined to think maybe they are, but I did not say it.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, had the member taken the time to read the bill which stands in my name, he would have found there was greater protection for police officers under that bill than under the government bill which was defeated. The government had it in its head that ordinary citizens would be given the power to fire police officers immediately, without recourse. What we said in our bill was that the chief of police was still in charge of the force and, upon the basis of a complaint being substantiated, the chief of police could choose to issue whatever disciplinary measures he chose. The police officer would still have the right of the grievance procedure through his union.

We built in some protection in the case of complaints which could not be substantiated, or in the situation wherein an arbitrary decision under the government’s bill could simply be made by citizens. What we addressed instead was the process under which a citizen could easily and quickly lodge a complaint, have it heard immediately, have it investigated independently and resolved. It would not be the gobbledegook that the government had for a citizen.

I would submit that if any citizen wanted to lodge a complaint under the government bill which was defeated, he should first hire a lawyer so he could work his way through the maze that was set up. It was incredible. There is not a citizen in this city who would go through the hoops that the government had set up. A reasonable person could look at that bill and construe from it that perhaps it was deliberately set up that way so that it would not have any hope of working. My major point, which still remains, is that, regardless of the difference of opinion in this place, we still do not have a procedure.

I would have thought that the government, having had its bill defeated, would have come back with a new proposal or another suggestion. Is the government so lacking in imagination, determination or political will that it cannot come back to the House with another proposal? It is very disturbing to think that the government is so complacent about citizens who have complaints against police action, and that, despite the many years of investigations, reports and submissions, they choose to sit idly by.

On this occasion, on this concurrence, part of the blame rests with the Provincial Secretariat for Justice, because I suspect that there is no such secretariat, and that they never meet. We asked earlier for the dates on which the justice policy group met, and who was included. We never got an answer.

Hon. Mr. Walker: The member never asked me that.

Mr. Warner: Let us try it again this morning. How often have you met in the last year? Who attends those meetings?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Once a week.

Mr. Warner: It is a sad commentary, but the Provincial Secretariat for Justice is useless.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of participating in the debate on this concurrence but, frankly, I find the minister’s comments during the previous concurrence an affront. The reason is that I, as a member of this Legislature, have campaigned for a long time in support of the provincial police in northern Ontario. It is through the efforts of people like municipal politicians and members on this side of the House that we have been trying to persuade this government to make a commitment to provide adequate funds to the provincial police so that they can hire the staff they need.

They cannot fulfil their responsibilities with the lack of staff they have now. This government has done absolutely nothing about it.

We had the Attorney General, in his guise as the Solicitor General, get up a couple of years ago and say he wanted to hire 100 to 150 constables to bring the OPP up to staff requirements. Then he cannot push it through the Management Board. He gets great headlines about how he wants more money for the police, and then he cannot put his money where his mouth is.

12:30 p.m.

If this government really supports the police, as this provincial secretary would have us believe, it is about time it put its money where its mouth is and hired the number of police officers we need in order to allow policemen in the remote areas of the north and in rural areas of southern Ontario to do the job they want to do. This government has not come up with the money and it is about time it did. Instead, what are they doing? They are regionalizing police operations in northern Ontario so that someone from Kapuskasing or Hornepayne has to go to Hearst to get a policeman late at night if they have a problem. It is going to take at least an hour for a response to that kind of call.

If this government calls that adequate policing and service to the public, I think it is crazy. As far as I am concerned, between Sault Ste. Marie and Thunder Bay on Highway 17, the only police force that gives 24-hour service is the township police department of Michipicoten. Every OPP detachment closes at midnight or 1 o’clock in the morning and there is not any service after that time except Zenith numbers. For that matter, this government does not even give that township police force adequate funds because the small municipalities do not get the same subsidies as regions. They have done nothing about that issue either, so they are underfunded as well.

If this government really does believe in the support of the police, it is about time it put its money where its mouth is and gave us adequate policing in northern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I certainly wish the rest of the members of the opposition would support the police as vehemently as does the member for Algoma. It is just unfortunate that the rest of his colleagues do not agree in the same way. There was a perfectly good bill that was presented before this House and that bill was decimated by those characters. I think I will leave it at that.

A moment ago I said that the citizenry was quite opposed to what was being done here by the two opposition parties. There is not a policeman in this province that I know of who does not believe that the opposition parties, the Liberals and the NDP, pulled the rug out from under them just a few months ago. There is no question but that their name is mud with any policemen in this province.

I would just like to say to the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere, who seemed to have thought he asked me when we met, and did not ask me when we met, but I am glad to tell him now -- he seems to have forgotten that he did not ask the question but having now remembered that he did not ask the question -- that the cabinet committee on justice meets every Thursday morning as a general rule. In fact, in the last three months we met on September 18, 1980, which was a Thursday; we met on September 25, 1980, which was a Thursday; we met on October 2, 1980, October 9, October 16, October 23 and October 30.

The member is not taking these dates down, and I refuse to continue on with these until he is prepared to write them down.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to leave it at that point. May I suggest that while we are into this area of discussing police matters, if you might be prepared to call the item standing in the name of the Solicitor General, which is quite a bit further down the way, I would be prepared as a courtesy to the opposition to stay around and answer a question or two about the Solicitor General’s estimates if you call that matter at this point.

The Deputy Speaker: The resolution for concurrence in supply was placed before the House at the beginning of the debate.

Is it the pleasure of the House that