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

December 9, 1981

32nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

WINTARIO GRANTS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TORONTO ISLANDS HOMES

WINTARIO GRANTS

QUEEN STREET MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE

GREAT LAKES-SEAWAY TASK FORCE REPORT

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO EXPORTS

QUEEN STREET MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE

INTEREST RATES

WAGE AND PRICE CONTROLS

COBEX REMOVAL

USE OF DRUGS IN MENTAL HEALTH CENTRES

LIQUOR LICENCE BOARD OF ONTARIO

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

URANIUM INDUSTRY EMPLOYEE SAFETY

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

PROVINCE OF ONTARIO SAVINGS OFFICE ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN COLLECTION AMENDMENT ACT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

WINTARIO GRANTS

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

WINTARIO GRANTS

Mr. Smith: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I believe it will be incumbent upon you to look into a matter in which my privileges and those of several other members of this House have been abused by the Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Baetz).

Members will recall discussing the matter of release of information concerning Wintario grants in this House on December 7. The minister said, "The members opposite will have it just as soon as they have it over on this side." Then the member for Quinte (Mr. O'Neil) said, if there is one member on that side of the Legislature" -- meaning the Conservative side -- "who has received that information before members on this side, it is surely something that is wrong, and I would like an assurance of that." The Speaker replied, "I think the minister did, with all respect."

Yesterday, the minister stood again and said, "I just want to say that tomorrow at two o'clock I will be making my statement and the members will have the information." You remember that, Mr. Speaker.

This morning at approximately 11 a.m. I was called by a reporter for the Hamilton Spectator who said he had heard, very early in the morning, from the member for Wentworth (Mr. Dean) who had been interested in announcing to the reporter the various recipients of Wintario grants in the Hamilton area. I presume the reporter called me in order to obtain my comments on these matters. At that time, I called the minister's office to find out how it is this happened and to see if I could receive the information about who in my riding was going to receive Wintario grants.

I tried to speak to Miss Peschel, who I understood was in charge of these matters, and was told she was not in. I spoke to Mrs. Goldring, who said she did not have the information, I would have to speak to Miss Peschel. I therefore insisted on holding the line until they found the latter person. They found her shortly and I spoke to Miss Peschel. She said: "The letters are collated and put in bundles for the various members. After 2 p.m. they will be in the mail room and put in the slots of the various members." She said, "No member yet has received these letters."

I said, "Did anybody get the information?" She said, "No member has received the letters." I said, "Yes, I understood you, but did anybody get the information?" She said, "Not through me." I said, "Do you know if anybody got the information through anyone?" She said, "I have no way of knowing that." I said, "I want to speak to the minister." She said, "He is in cabinet." I said, "I will hold the line, please get him out of cabinet."

I held the line for some 15 minutes. Then she returned to the phone and said, "Mr. Baetz has said" -- this is approximately 11:25 a.m. by then -- "you can have the information regarding your riding." I said, "Why am I to be so favoured in this way by the minister?" She said: "I do not know. You will have to ask him." I said, "Is anyone else going to be favoured in this way?" She said, "Not through me."

I then said, "How do you propose to deal with this?" She said: "I will have to send someone to the mail room where they are collating these letters. We will try to form a bundle of the letters in your riding and we will send it right to your office." I said. "Thank you." This is approximately 11:35 a.m.

At 12:55 p.m. a parcel arrived in my office consisting of a number of letters for some projects in Hamilton West. It was accompanied by a letter saying the minister would appreciate it if I might maintain an embargo on the release of the information which had been attached until his announcement in the Legislature at 2 p.m. today.

The member for Wentworth, a Conservative, obviously had the information early this morning, and it is my understanding he received it from the minister's office. I clearly was not given the information until far too late to make the deadline of the newspapers in my area, which have an earlier publishing deadline, as the member for Wentworth well knows.

Clearly we are being treated once again to a situation where the minister has stood in this House to give repeated assurances which are supposed to be taken as true. Yet we find we cannot rely on those assurances at all and a cheap political game is going on. The minister told us just the other day he is not a liar. He even pointed out his father is a clergyman, presumably leading us to believe the acorn does not fall far from the tree. In this case, the nut has rolled some considerable distance.

Mr. Speaker, our privileges have been abused and I want you to stand --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Smith: I seriously doubt there are many voters in Ontario who will be taken in by the kind of cheap, political, underhanded game that is being played by these people. However there may be some who will think that if they hear a Conservative name attached to a Wintario grant it may mean he is a particularly good fellow or the Tories are especially nice people.

There may be some who will be taken in in this regard -- not many I hope. But it is a cheap and underhanded political game. Apart from that, the minister has stood in this House and assured us that would not happen and yet his assurance turns out to be worth nothing. This is not the first time that has happened in recent memory.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to protect the privileges of the members of this House. I trust the Premier (Mr. Davis) will take note of the continuing record of incompetence and lack of trustworthiness on the part of this minister.

2:10 p.m.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I too have had communication with the minister's office this morning. I too have had communication with Miss Peschel, who, I assume, was put up to her brusqueness by the minister, because that is the kind of attitude he has tended to take on these matters. I too feel aggrieved and feel the privileges on this side of the House have been offended, having learned that the member for Carleton (Mr. Mitchell) was apprised of the Wintario projects in his riding last evening and was getting the information around this morning.

While I was not informed, my assistant was informed by Miss Peschel -- in a very brusque, rather abrupt manner -- that we would have the information when the minister made his statement in the Legislature at two o'clock today.

I did get a copy of the information at one o'clock. We had another call from Miss Peschel who appeared to have thought better of her initial outburst. She said the information about my riding would be coming to me as a courtesy to me as the leader of the third party. I suggest the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) and my other colleagues in the NDP caucus would not have gotten the same treatment. I resent that, because I happen to think -- and I am an MPP like everybody else -- that all my members should get the same treatment.

When people voluntarily tax themselves for Wintario they do so in the hope of winning a prize, and they also do so knowing their money is going to go into projects that might otherwise not be assisted in the community where they live. Some of those people are New Democrats, some of them are Liberals, some of them are Conservatives. I suspect there are some neo-Marxists and some anarchists among them as well.

I think it is wrong the government should arrogate to its members the right to announce these things as though they were gifts from the Conservative Party. These are gifts from the people of Ontario to the people of Ontario, and this kind of political chicanery and sleaze should not be allowed.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to this point in a slightly different way, because I had some previous information that I perhaps ought to have made available on Monday, on which day the honourable member for Quinte (Mr. O'Neil) expressed in his question to the honourable Minister of Culture and Recreation his concern about some pre-released information.

At that time I certainly appreciated the very straightforward and, I felt, candid response of the minister, who said there was no pre-release of information; that no member, to the best of his knowledge, had got access to this information; that it was very confidential -- indeed it remained in the ministry's computer; and that it would be released on Tuesday and later on Wednesday of this week. I sat in my place quietly reflecting on the panoply of front-page announcements that festooned the Renfrew county weekly press last week to the effect that "Yakabuski announces million-dollar Wintario bonanza for South Renfrew."

The minister assured the House this could not have been the case, and I accepted his answer in good faith. Yesterday, according to the Instant Hansard of 1510-2, the honourable member for Renfrew South (Mr. Yakabuski) said: "I rise on a point of personal privilege. Yesterday and today the Minister of Culture and Recreation was asked if he had provided me with advance information re Wintario grants. I am rising at this time to state most emphatically that the minister did not."

At that very hour, 252 miles from this chamber, the Tuesday, December 8, 1981, edition of the Pembroke Observer was hitting the streets with the following: "Yakabuski announces area Wintario grants." I quote: "Various communities in Renfrew South will receive Wintario grants totalling almost $1 million in the coming months, Paul J. Yakabuski, MPP Renfrew South, announced today after consulting with the honourable Reuben Baetz, Ontario Minister of Culture and Recreation."

Mr. Speaker, I think I am a reasonable, straightforward person. I find there to be an apparent -- and, depending on your point of view, serious -- contradiction in the public statements in this place between the honourable Minister of Culture and Recreation and the honourable member for Renfrew South. And that speaks as well to the point of privilege I raised earlier.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of privilege. Although it appears some Conservative members had advance information, late yesterday afternoon, when my assistant phoned the ministry at the request of a municipality in my riding to get information about an application made by the recreation committee of that municipality we were told the information would be made available today and the official could not second-guess the minister by providing information to a member of the Legislature ahead of that announcement.

If that is the case, why is the minister being second-guessed by members of his own caucus? How is it these other announcements have been made by members of the Conservative Party?

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of personal privilege: I think there is a broader privilege of all of us that has been abused here. As far as I am concerned, that is the cheapening and downgrading of this House by the basest form of petty pork-barrel politics being practised by the minister and those who have issued the information, knowing full well this side of the House did not have that information.

I wonder if there is not also a point of principle involved that should be addressed here in terms of the ministers involved in this government.

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, since I originally raised this matter in the Legislature, I think I should straighten out that I called the minister's office last Thursday because I had also heard this information was being given out to some of the Conservative members. When I called the minister's office I was told the same information as my leader, which was that information would not be made available until next week.

On Monday I tried to reach the minister at his office. I made two calls and, to be fair, his assistant did return one of those calls when I was not in, so I raised the matter in the Legislature.

We heard the minister's statements. After leaving this Legislature, and while talking to two reporters in the hall, the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Taylor) walked by and mentioned to me that if I were to call the regional office, the information would likely be obtainable. I did call the regional office. The information was given to me and I announced that information in my riding on Monday.

I called the minister last evening to ask whether it might be possible to pass on to my colleagues that the same information would be available from the regional offices. The minister did not return my call. On the other hand, the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins) called the Peterborough office and he was refused. They would not give him that information. I believe there certainly has been a breakdown as to whether these regional offices were to give out the information. We also wonder why some of the Conservative members were given it well in advance of ourselves.

Mr. Wrye: On the point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I heard this noon hour that perhaps some of the offices were handing out these announcements early and that one could get one's name in the paper by being able to make the announcement.

I called the Windsor Star around 1:30 p.m. today and asked whether they had received any announcement of Wintario capital grants. They had not. I was quite relieved to know this kind of pork-barrel politics was not going on. Then I suddenly realized there are no government members anywhere in Essex county. Essex county is a very wise place.

I went a little further afield and called the Chatham Daily News. Lo and behold, the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Watson) had announced a $74,000 Wintario capital grant this morning. Further, I called the regional office in Windsor and was told I could not get the information until two o'clock.

Then I called the regional office in London and we have been assured by that regional office the member for Chatham-Kent was not given the information by that office. If he did not get it from that office, where did he get it?

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Shymko: Mr. Speaker, for the principle of equity I would like to refer to the comments of the member for Quinte who received information and apparently received some Wintario grants in his riding. There are many Tory members on this side of the House who, despite the information, have not received any moneys from the Wintario projects. I think the information was not given to all the members.

I had not received any information and I had received no money. Let us realize there are many members on this side of the House who were not informed of any grants and had received no grants whatsoever compared with many constituencies represented by the honourable members who were fortunate enough to receive grants. The principle is not the information but simply the grants that have been distributed to a variety of constituencies. My constituency received zero.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, on a point --

Mr. Speaker: Is this on the same point?

Mr. Bradley: Yes. It is on the same one, very briefly.

Mr. Speaker: All right. This will be the last one. I think we have had ample discussion on this.

Mr. Bradley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I too was very interested in the Wintario grants that would be provided to the Niagara region. However, I did not call the regional office and I did not call the minister's office because I had faith in the words of the minister that nothing would be revealed until two o'clock today.

Mr. Smith: That is right. He misled this House.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Culture and Recreation.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. All the members who wanted to have the opportunity of being heard have been heard. I would ask them to extend the same courtesy to the minister.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, we have now wasted 25 minutes of this assembly. If the members opposite would quit rising on what they perceive to be a point of privilege and go down to their mailboxes then they could find all the approvals of the projects down there waiting for them. I do not know why they are up here haranguing away at it.

I have also received a blow-by-blow description of the Leader of the Opposition's harassment of my staff this morning. At least he was correct and honest, and I am surprised the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition would be wasting his time on a matter like this. I can understand why he is over there and not here. The same goes for the leader of the third party.

As a point of interest, our leader over here has far more important things to do and he, at least to this minute, does not know what projects in his riding have been approved. So it shows the members who is running the affairs of state and who is preoccupied with the small stuff.

As I told the members several days ago, the procedure in making these grants this time is quite different. Instead of making a few grants every week we have allowed the grants to accumulate until today. I will be announcing, if the members give me time to do so, that we have approved over 600 grants.

These are all going out today. The information is going out today but the members can surely appreciate that with that volume of information around in the field offices, in my office, in the computers, as the honourable member for Quinte knows, because he harassed my field office staff in Belleville and finally forced them to give the information.

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I did not harass the minister's field office in Belleville. I had the courtesy not to put them on the spot to release that information to me and that is why I went to the minister's office. I called three or four times to try and get that information. I will not put the civil servants in this province in a position to embarrass them, so the minister should not say I harassed his office in Belleville. That is a lie. That is a lie.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will ask the honourable member to withdraw that remark.

Mr. O'Neil: I will not withdraw, Mr. Speaker. The minister should withdraw the comment that I harassed, because that is an untruth.

Mr. Speaker: I have no alternative but to --

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw that if he withdraws his statement that I harassed his Belleville staff, because I did not.

Mr. Speaker: Order. No, I will have to ask the member to withdraw that remark. Failing --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have the floor. The honourable member for Quinte.

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw it.

Mr. Martel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The minister has imputed motives to my colleague the member for Quinte and he has no alternative but to withdraw that comment, absolutely none.

Mr. Speaker: The minister was rising when you rose.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the word "harass" and replace it with "inveigle" or "dupe" or whatever. The member gave them incorrect information.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, will the minister withdraw those words as well, or will he continue to impute motives and to abuse the rules of this Legislature?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, if you think back to the original point I raised, the minister is accused in this House of having in a deliberate way misinformed this House on two consecutive days. Instead of answering that question, he has now chosen to impute motives to the member for Quinte.

I almost hesitate to press the matter because I am afraid he will leave the cabinet and a gold mine for us will be lost. I do believe, Mr. Speaker, that you have some duty to protect members in this House from being accused of harassing civil servants when they have not done so, or inveigling or duping anybody, or any other ill motives when they are not correct. It is surely not parliamentary to make that kind of accusation about another member.

I hope you will demand a proper standard, first of all, of withdrawing that and, second, of answering the original allegation, which is that the minister has not been truthful with this House for the last two days. He says his leader has better things to do than what I did this morning. Maybe if his leader spent more time checking up on the integrity of the minister, the minister would not be in the cabinet any more.

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, before the minister has a chance to withdraw, I hope, all of those statements, might I say my exact words in my telephone call to the ministry office on Monday were these: "I have just spoken with Mr. Jim Taylor outside the Legislature in the presence of two reporters and Mr. Taylor more or less implied that I should call your office to get this information. If it is embarrassing in any way to yourself, I will go back to the minister." Those were my exact words and I do not call that harassing. I think that is being very considerate of people in the field office.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I will be quite pleased to withdraw the word "harassment" whether it was directed to the member for Quinte or to the Leader of the Opposition. I would simply ask that some independent body take a look at the conversation. I think it was quite accurately reflected in the statement by the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon, because that is pretty well what I heard from my staff. I would like to have a third party determine --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: No, not that party -- an independent party determine what was involved here. Apparently the Leader of the Opposition was on the phone for many minutes, maybe 20 minutes, maybe half an hour. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to look into the details of that conversation.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, at the minister's behest, and because of the seriousness of the allegations made, I would suggest we send this matter immediately to the procedural affairs committee so that all of the details can be examined. I would ask Mr. Speaker to do so. I see the House leader shaking his head, but I am just meeting the request by the minister that this be the case. That is the body that usually looks into these matters. If the minister does not want it examined he should get up and state that.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Hamilton East has been trying valiantly for many minutes.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I guess I am in your hands but I think it is a point of privilege and my concern --

Mr. Speaker: The same one?

Mr. Mackenzie: The same one. The non- answers we were getting from the minister, the attacks he was making on the procedures or what had happened or who was harassed, was not an answer to the serious questions and allegations that have been made. It is this kind of dishonest claptrap that is putting us in trouble in this House.

Mr. Smith: I want to receive an answer, Mr. Speaker. What are you going to do about it?

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. I did hear the request of the Leader of the Opposition. I also heard the request of the minister. I would once again point out to all honourable members it is not my duty or responsibility to make a judgement.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: No, that is not true. I have no way of knowing, with all respect, what has been said or not been said. I have no way of making a judgement whether it is truthful or not truthful. I think it is the responsibility and duty of the House to make a determination on that matter.

Mr. Martel: Send it to the procedural affairs committee.

Mr. Speaker: It is not the duty of the Speaker to make a judgement. It will have to be done by motion. The members know that as well as I do, with all respect.

Mr. Martel: On a point of order --

Mr. Speaker: On the same one?

Mr. Martel: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: This is deteriorating into a debate.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, you certainly have the ability to send something to the procedural affairs committee if you want the thing examined. I am not asking you to decide, as I said earlier this week in this House, whether someone is telling the truth or not. That is not your responsibility. But when you are requested, and on precedent where the former Speaker sent things to the procedural affairs committee, certainly it is within your power to send it there.

Mr. Smith: For three consecutive days the minister has not been truthful in this House.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to have the opportunity to consider this. I will do that and I will get back.

Interjections.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I first raised, and several other members have raised, the words used by the minister where he stated that the member for Quinte had duped or inveigled the regional office of the ministry in Belleville. Those words were not withdrawn, as far as I understand, despite the rules --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Yes they were.

Mr. Cassidy: They were not --

Mr. Speaker: Yes they were. He withdrew his remarks, as I understood them.

Interjections.

Mr. Cassidy: Will you insist that those words be withdrawn, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Smith: He withdrew only the word "harassed." He did not withdraw "duped" or "inveigled."

Mr. Speaker: Again, you are asking me to make a judgement.

Mr. Cassidy: That's your job.

Mr. Speaker: No, it is not, with all respect. I am not going to argue with you.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to draw this matter out any further but the minister advised members that by two o'clock these notices of Wintario grants would be in our mailboxes and as of 10 minutes ago there was no such notice in my mail box.

Interjections.

Ms. Copps: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, at 2:30 p.m. there was no notice in my mailbox nor has there been to date. The minister just said a few minutes ago to every person in this House that the notices would have been delivered by two o'clock today. They are not there. This is another example of the misinformation, and the kind of misleading information, that we have had in this House.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Maybe the minister would be good enough to look into it.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I was told the copies of the letters would be here in the House. I do not deliver the mail myself. I do not know if they are down there now or not, but they are going to be there today.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TORONTO ISLANDS HOMES

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, today I will be introducing a bill which is based on the Swadron report recommendations. This bill will permit the residential community to remain on the Toronto Islands to the year 2005. When Barry Swadron officially released his report last spring, I announced that the essence of the report, "that a community on the Toronto Islands should be continued and that those who are resident in that community should pay their way," was acceptable to the government of Ontario and we would take appropriate steps to put this into effect.

As the members of this House will recall, a year ago November we passed Bill 181, the Toronto Islands Act, which stayed the execution of the writs of possession issued upon the residents of the Toronto Islands until July 1, 1981. The objective in passing such legislation was to permit Mr. Swadron to complete his inquiry into the future use of the residential portion of the Toronto Islands. As I noted then, this was the first time the whole issue of the future use of these lands had been examined in depth by an independent commission.

In order to allow this matter to be discussed thoroughly, Bill 103, which postponed the writs for a further six months until December 31, 1981, was enacted. Over the past few months numerous meetings between myself and representatives of Metropolitan Toronto, and several meetings with city of Toronto representatives, have taken place to try to achieve a compromise solution. However, I must frankly acknowledge it was not possible to produce a bill pleasing to everyone.

The preparation of the bill that will be before us today was guided by a desire to follow the spirit of Mr. Swadron's recommendations. This bill provides for the reimbursement of Metropolitan Toronto for its expenditures with respect to the islands' residential community.

I will briefly explain the main provisions of the bill.

The municipality of Metropolitan Toronto will be deemed to have leased the lands and houses to the city of Toronto at an amount equal to the fair market value of such lands used for residential purposes, subject to review at intervals of not more than five years. Failing agreement, the rates will be determined by arbitration.

Persons who held an interest in premises prior to October 19, 1978, and have continued to hold an interest in those premises since that date, will be entitled to a lease of those premises. In other cases, the city of Toronto may decide who is an occupant entitled to enter into a lease with the city.

As a precondition of receiving a lease from the city, an occupant shall pay to Metro all outstanding arrears of rent and occupation rent, and shall pay to the city arrears of taxes and public utilities rates attributable to the lands and structures that are leased by the city to the occupant, together with interest.

The occupant must use the house as his principal residence.

All rights of Metro to possession of the lands under the writs of possession will be assigned to the city of Toronto. The city shall reimburse Metro for expenditures made on deficits incurred for provision of municipal services attributable to the residential community.

The city of Toronto and Metropolitan Toronto shall, as long as residential leases are in effect on Ward's Island and Algonquin Island, continue to maintain the existing level of services for the islands, but if a different level of services is provided by the city of Toronto in the city from time to time, such different level of services may be provided.

No occupant may grant an assignment, sublease or licence of occupation. Where the occupant ceases to occupy the premises as his principal residence, the lease between the occupant and the city of Toronto shall be deemed to be terminated and the city may lease the premises to another person.

Metropolitan Toronto shall lease to the city the lands occupied and used by the Algonquin Island Residents Association and the Ward's Island Residents Association. These associations may not assign or sublease these lands.

The bill defines occupant so as to first protect those persons with a long-standing interest in the island lands, but also includes persons who resided there at the time of the preparation and release of Mr. Swadron's report.

Metropolitan Toronto shall extend the sanitary sewer system on the Toronto Islands to serve the island residential community at the cost of the city of Toronto.

2:40 p.m.

I am confident this legislation, which I hope will be supported by all members of this House, will bring a conclusion to what has been a very thorny and troublesome matter for many people concerning the residences on the Toronto Islands.

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, on a point of clarification --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought that was very clear.

WINTARIO GRANTS

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to announce today that I am approving some $40 million worth of grants for more than 600 community projects in all parts of Ontario. These grants, funded by the proceeds of the Wintario lottery, will help build and improve a tremendous array of cultural and recreational facilities in our province.

They mark the first group of awards made under the new Wintario capital grants program I announced last January 28. They will mean new and improved facilities in every part of Ontario, in centres big and small: new YMCAs, new libraries, cultural centres, museums, creative playgrounds, sports complexes and arenas, and the list goes on.

In the six years it has been operating, the Wintario capital grants program has had an enormous and profound influence not only on the cultural and recreational life of this province but on the economy as well. Since September 1975, my ministry has supported the construction of more than 4,000 cultural and recreational facilities with grants totalling about $225 million. With the 600 new projects, the province's support will be increasing to about $265 million.

As honourable members know, my ministry acts as a partner with the local community in the development of public cultural and recreational projects. In general we grant one dollar for every two dollars raised by the local community. In northern and eastern Ontario we match the local community dollar for dollar, and when it comes to making public cultural and recreational facilities accessible to disabled people we provide three dollars for every one dollar raised locally.

As I said, during the last six years my ministry has paid out about $225 million in Wintario capital grants. That means we have played a vital

part in stimulating some $700 million worth of activity in Ontario's construction sector. It has been estimated that, as a result, work for more than 14,000 men and women has been created. Now, with new commitments totalling about $40 million, we will be participating in another $120 million worth of construction activity. That means the Wintario capital grants program's total direct economic impact is approaching the $1 billion mark.

As I said earlier, this new group of grants numbers more than 600. Between last April 1, when we opened up for grant applications, and the September 30 deadline, we received about 1,000 requests for support under the new program. I was able to grant about 60 per cent of those requests. Community groups, in consultation with my staff, worked very hard to develop their applications.

Obviously, I would prefer to have been in a position to approve more of them. But as honourable members know, we do not commit more support than the funds I have available, so I had to make some very difficult choices. I want to emphasize that those choices were made with great care and were based on priorities and criteria that flowed from our capital priorities review, which we completed last year. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, this comprehensive study was conducted in detailed consultation with the members of this assembly who chose to participate and with thousands of local groups and officials.

The grant applications that I am approving reflect very closely the priorities that flowed out of this review. The grant awards involve 351 sports projects, 149 community centre projects, 45 library projects, 22 museum projects, 19 arts projects and 10 heritage projects. The scope of our sport and recreation projects runs from a new Central YMCA here in Toronto to a creative playground in Delhi. Our community centre initiatives will include a community park and recreation centre in Sudbury as well as a community hall in Port McNicoll.

In the library field, we will be helping to build a new library in Georgina township and assisting the Etobicoke library system with an energy conservation project. Our museum projects will include a new facility for Goderich. In the arts, we will be supporting a town hall theatre in Nanticoke. In heritage we will be involved in the restoration of the courthouse in Niagara-on-the-Lake.

Financial support for all of these projects will start to flow next April 1. We expect to pay out $30 million in this group of grants during the 1982-83 fiscal year with the remaining $10 million flowing thereafter. Finally, next April 1, we plan to start accepting applications for a new cycle of Wintario capital grants for payments to commence April 1, 1983.

My ministry's Wintario capital grants program has changed the leisure-time face of this province, particularly in smaller centres which would not have been able to afford many projects without provincial help.

It has already helped build such important public facilities as the Hawkesbury Sportsplex to the east, the London Art Gallery to the west, the Jeux Canada Games Complex at Thunder Bay in the north and an expanded Royal Ontario Museum and new Massey Hall here in the south.

Some of our new projects will undoubtedly become as familiar as the ones I have just mentioned and I would like to take this opportunity to wish all our partners at the community level every success with them.

QUEEN STREET MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise on a point of privilege to clarify the record if I may. I will try to be mercifully brief.

On Monday of this week the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) was asked a series of questions with respect to the safety of patients at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre in view of medical staff shortages. The minister said, and I quote, "We do not believe that the situation at Queen Street constitutes a threat to staff or to patients."

When the minister made that statement, he should have been aware of a memorandum from the president of the medical staff at Queen Street, Dr. Gray, in which Dr. Gray stated that because of the loss of 18 doctors over the course of the past year, "This loss is now approaching the equivalent of one of the geographical service's total psychiatric staff." He goes on to say, "The result of the loss in medical staffing is to turn Queen Street" --

Interjections.

Mr. Boudria: It is a final supplementary.

Mr. McClellan: I think this is an important matter --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not really a point of privilege, with all respect.

Mr. McClellan: It is a matter of correcting the record.

Mr. Speaker: You will have an opportunity to do that at the appropriate time.

Mr. McClellan: The minister said he was aware of that and also --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

GREAT LAKES-SEAWAY TASK FORCE REPORT

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, as members of this House will recall, earlier this year I received the report of the Great Lakes-Seaway task force from its chairman, Mr. Ralph Misener.

That report outlined the concerns and comments of many individuals and organizations associated with the marine mode and provided extremely valuable background information as well as specific recommendations concerning this vital transportation system. One of the issues that is most apparent, after review of the report, is that Ontario must take a stronger stance on Great Lakes-Seaway policy.

After six months of study, today I would like to outline the action we propose to take, based on the task force findings, to implement that stronger stance. Our first move will be to support and promote immediate short-range capacity improvements on the Welland Canal, the canal closest to its capacity among all sections of the entire Great Lakes-Seaway system and the canal where, at peak periods, substantial delays in passage are common.

The report categorizes a number of specific suggestions aimed at effecting greater capacity. We intend to take them to the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority and to determine from them the plans and timetable for improvements that we have identified.

We have also reached the point where we must take a definite stand on the question of extending the navigation season. I realize the problems of cost, the environment and jurisdiction all make this a particularly thorny issue, but its resolution is vital to the intelligent development of the system's potential.

In this area, it is my intention that the Ministry of Transportation and Communications will act as a co-ordinating body and request other ministries and agencies concerned to identify all difficulties and obstacles clearly so they can be evaluated and considered and an informed government position arrived at.

A third initiative will be to implement a co-ordinated strategy to make the public more aware of the importance of the Great Lakes-Seaway system.

The economic importance of the system, both to this province and to the country as a whole, cannot be overstated. Money must be spent over the next few years to ensure that the system maintains its vital role in our transportation network. Since that money will come from the public purse, we must inform the public of the real necessity of a healthy Great Lakes-Seaway system as part of the overall Ontario and Canadian transportation system.

2:50 p.m.

The co-ordination of this public awareness program, including films, speeches, publications and participation in public events, will again be carried out by my ministry working with others, such as the Ministry of Education, while the appropriate agencies, the shippers, carriers, unions and the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority will be requested to assist in execution of the individual elements.

In addition to this public awareness initiative, the Ontario International Corporation has been asked to act as the catalyst in developing a commercial promotional program for the Great Lakes-Seaway system. To this end, contact will be made with the Ontario harbour commissions to discuss the program and its format as a prelude to discussions with other interested parties.

Next, we hope to establish an advisory council of industry representatives, people with real world experience in the marine mode, to supply expert advice on how best to find and continually update the appropriate solutions. This would be an extremely flexible body, with membership changing to reflect the issues under discussion at any given time.

We also intend to develop a provincial ports strategy, one which will include all Ontario ports, so the government can determine the potential for provincial participation in port development. Although ports are under federal jurisdiction, they play a critical role in Ontario's economy and transportation network, directly influencing the development of their surrounding areas. The significance of these ports requires examination and we must develop an overall strategy to accommodate requests for provincial assistance or facilitate dealings with the federal government.

All of these initiatives will be undertaken in the context of our dedication to the principle of an overall transportation network and considering all modes, including the Great Lakes-Seaway system.

While we are genuinely concerned that the system may not be adequate to accommodate expected demand, I can say that no specific long-term plans for expensive expansion will be supported without a full evaluation of our transportation network as a whole, an evaluation geared to assist this province to determine where improvements would be most appropriate.

The program I have outlined represents the areas of emphasis articulated by the Great Lakes-Seaway task force, areas which we intend to address first, for it is plain to me that Ontario must ensure that our marine mode is safeguarded and strengthened as a vital contributor to our provincial economy.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO EXPORTS

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. When the matter of selling electricity to General Public Utilities in the United States was first raised, the minister claimed electricity would come from the grid, not just from coal-fired stations. A few days later, the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) stated, "On the basis of current projections, it is possible that about 30 per cent of the exports to GPU will be from nuclear energy."

In fact, I am now sending to the minister information directly from Ontario Hydro which clearly indicates that if GPU takes advantage of the full contract, nuclear sources will supply only 8.3 per cent of the electricity and coal will supply 91.7 per cent. The emissions from this contract alone will kill 560 Ontario lakes.

Does the minister think a sale of electricity which will net only $43 million in profit is worth the loss of 560 of our remaining lakes?

An hon. member: Well written.

Ms. Copps: I wrote it.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I would begin by observing that I hope that last comment was not intended as an insult to Mr. Rudolph, who normally does a very fine job of writing the Liberal Party's questions. He is really a very capable young researcher, as I understand it.

Mr. Kerrio: You should have such researchers over there.

Hon. Mr. Norton: That is how I come to recognize his ability, because I know what ability is when I see it on my own staff.

I suppose we could debate back and forth from now until such time as that project goes ahead, if it ever does, in terms of what the precise mix might be. When I responded to the member's question, I responded on the basis of the best information I had been able to obtain. It may be the information the member has sent over is somewhat more up to date. Obviously, my response at that time was not out of line with what the Minister of Energy had in mind a few days later. The point is there will be some mix. It is not going to be entirely from coal-fired plants. I do not know exactly what that mix might be.

The latter part of the member's comment is really very hypothetical. There is no sound scientific basis upon which one can base that kind of calculation in terms of the numbers of lakes. I am not suggesting the member or her research staff have done this, but I think there are people who are trying to take a very elementary and simplistic approach to calculating what is going to cause what effects in terms of lakes. That is precisely the important area of research we are now engaged in.

In terms of my involvement with my federal counterpart in this country and with ministers from other provinces who are part of the board of ministers charged with the responsibility of determining national policy on the acid rain situation, I do not know of anyone who can categorically make that kind of statement. It is one of the issues we are looking at very carefully in view of the negotiations now under way pursuant to the memorandum of intent with the United States.

To some extent the American negotiators would like us to come up with a firm figure that tries to correlate levels with the damage to specific things. Frankly, to the best of my knowledge at this time, there is no scientific evidence, no reliable evidence of any kind that I am aware of, from which one could draw the conclusion that a particular level of emissions would lead to the death of a certain number of lakes. That is very speculative and unreliable.

I would also point out though that, despite what the ultimate outcome may be of the negotiations under way between Ontario Hydro and General Public Utilities, Ontario Hydro will be bound, regardless of the demand and of production levels, to live within the progressively reduced levels of emissions set out in the regulations to which it is now subject. It knows it will not be exempted from that and its planning must take place within the context of a 45 per cent reduction in emissions. I think that has to be borne in mind.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand the confidential telex the minister sent to the president of the National Energy Board on November 19, in which he stated: "We are concerned that issues regarding the project's effect on the environment be discussed to the satisfaction of the government of Ontario. Accordingly, we would like to confirm whether the board would be willing to include criteria in its consideration of the undertaking that would meet Ontario's requirements."

Will the minister explain why he asked the National Energy Board to deal with the environmental aspects of the project when NEB members represent the energy industry? Surely environmental hearings should be carried out by environmental experts, and the Minister of the Environment should know that.

Hon. Mr. Norton: It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that the honourable member has not been able to take the time to attend our estimates now under way, because that matter has been fairly extensively discussed in the estimates.

I would start out by saying that to the best of my knowledge there was nothing confidential about my telex. I have discussed it with members. I may not have distributed it as such, but from the very beginning I indicated I was in communication with the National Energy Board.

3 p.m.

That is not the only communication we have had. There has been an exchange of communication. If the member thinks she has a confidential document leak, then I am sorry to disappoint her. If she had asked me what the communication had been about, she would have been quite entitled to the information. The reason that communication was initiated on my part was because of the fact, as I previously stated in the House and elsewhere, there have been three independent legal opinions -- not all to my ministry; only one was requested by my ministry when we happened not to agree with two previous ones.

All of these have indicated that, given the doctrine of primacy under our constitution with respect to federal legislation in specific areas, and this is one of them, we have been advised that the Environmental Assessment Act would not be legally binding in this situation, given the primacy of the federal legislation and the authority of the National Energy Board.

In the face of that opinion, I have been exploring, as I indicated to the committee, through my office in the ministry and also with the college, ways by which -- if that is a correct opinion, and I have received no legal opinions to the contrary, it is important to me that we be able in this province to ensure that our standards for environmental protection be applied in whatever forum is going to be the appropriate and the binding forum in this matter of an export of energy across an international boundary.

One of the things that occurred to me initially was, is there a possibility of a combined hearing, something like we have already done in Ontario with our consolidated hearings legislation. That was not an acceptable proposal, I learned from the federal government, by virtue of the fact that its agency was not in the position to sit down with the province and have a combined hearing.

Then I followed up with further questions to see if they in fact would agree to apply our legislation and the standards which are implicit in it. All those are exploratory communications so that I can be in a position to determine what the best course of action is to protect the interests of the people of this province in the area of environmental protection.

I am not embarrassed about the communication. I think it is important that one seeks to explore all of the possible alternatives so that one is in the best position possible to select which is going to be the most effective way of achieving the objectives of Ontario.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell me who he expects the challenge from if he subjects the project to the environmental assessment laws of this province? Does he expect a challenge from the federal government? Does he expect a challenge from Ontario Hydro, one of Ontario's agencies, or does he expect his challenge from the Americans? Tell us who he expects a challenge from, and subject the thing to Ontario's laws.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I think the honourable member has missed the point. If one were to approach public responsibility with the degree of narrow-mindedness and tunnel vision the honourable member sometimes reflects in his questions, my goodness, we sure would not be making much progress in this province.

Mr. Foulds: I gave a direct question. Give us a direct answer.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I intend to give you a direct answer, but I must say there were certain things implicit in your question that I felt merited a response.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Never mind the interjections. Answer the question please.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I shall try to do that. They tend to be rather loud and sometimes difficult to ignore.

The point surely is this: if we were to proceed through an environmental assessment -- and this is one of things I want to have very clear answers on before we make a final decision -- and hypothetically the determination of the Environmental Assessment Board was not consistent with the determination of the National Energy Board; in other words, the National Energy Board said, "It has our stamp of approval, you can go ahead." The Environmental Assessment Board came to a contrary conclusion.

Under the legal opinions that exist, it may well be possible that the decision of the Environmental Assessment Board would be void, because it does not have legal effect in view of the primacy of the federal legislation. That is the issue; that is, at least, one of the important issues that has to be sorted out.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the telex is no longer confidential. It probably became nonconfidential this morning when the minister realized we had a copy of it. But I would point out to him that his office refused to release this telex to either our staff, Energy Probe or Ontario Hydro.

Interjections.

Ms. Copps: On to the supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Ms. Copps: Given that Ontario Hydro is spending more money on this cable than on its entire acid rain program, and given that the minister may exempt this proposal from Ontario's environmental legislation to benefit a company that needs electricity because it destroyed its own Three Mile Island plant, will the minister guarantee to this House that the proposed project will be subject to examination under the Environmental Assessment Act?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, obviously that is what all the questions up to this point have been dealing with. I think I have explained the complexity of the issue and the fact that I am trying to sort it out at the moment.

Ms. Copps: Does the minister have an answer?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am not going to be taken into a situation where I will give the member the very simplistic and naive response she would like.

In view of the fact that the honourable member's question again raised the issue of confidentiality, all I can say is that the --

Mr. Speaker: That was not the question, with all respect.

Hon. Mr. Norton: No, but it is a relevant question, because she is suggesting that I was somehow trying to hide it. She may well have had that response from --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think you made that point very clear previously.

Interjections.

QUEEN STREET MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. I suppose this is a supplementary to the point of privilege raised earlier by the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) but more in the nature of a question.

On Monday the minister reassured this House that none of the patients at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre were in danger. In fact, he said, "First, let me say we do not believe the situation at Queen Street constitutes a threat to staff or patients." That was on Monday.

Now a death has occurred in circumstances that raise grave questions about the ability of the medical staff, which is already overburdened, to cope with the exceptional needs of the hospital and its patients. Is the minister now going to respond to the urgent call of doctors in this hospital? What action will he take to clean up the mess at Queen Street?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the honourable member, to my knowledge the autopsy is not even complete yet, let alone the analyses of the sedative that was apparently used on this patient. I submit to the member that her question sounds as though, with no knowledge whatsoever of the case, she has already decided what the answers are or has reached her conclusion.

Mr. Nixon: Now, now, now.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: With respect, that is exactly what the question implies.

Let us just go back over the history of it. We made a number of changes at Queen Street Mental Health Centre early in 1981 because we recognized that the program there was not all it could be or should be. We made changes in administration. Following on that, we decided to engage outside consultants, including outside psychiatric consultants working through and for Peat Marwick, to evaluate the existing program at Queen Street and to advise on the most effective way to reorganize the hospital so it better meets its responsibilities for the provision of psychiatric care in the very large catchment area it serves.

With the greatest respect to the member, on the basis of the information from my assistant deputy minister and my director of psychiatric hospitals, or any of the other information that has come to me, I have no reason to change that opinion. It would be premature and, I submit, irresponsible to try to draw into the review that is under way at Queen Street and the changes that are going to be made at Queen Street the fact that one of the patients did pass away this last weekend and that this matter is under investigation.

3:10 p.m.

Ms. Copps: While the minister was waiting for the results from Peat Marwick, the hospital staff wrote him a letter on November 13, in which it stated: "The situation is extremely critical. The increased caseload has led to a deterioration in the quality of care. The medical staff no longer feels able to maintain the standards. Inevitably, because of the types of patients we care for, because they are isolated and lonely and suffer from severe chronic illness, there will be an incident, with attending media publicity."

That was drawn to the attention of the ministry on November 13. How much more of a warning does the minister need before he is going to move on this very tragic and unnecessary death?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: First of all, Mr. Speaker, in response to that, let me remind the honourable member that since deciding to engage outside consultants at the same time as we imposed a hiring freeze, there has been rehiring for those positions necessary to maintain the programs. Perhaps the member was not in the House the other day when I told the members that the advice I have had is that at this time there are 1,131 full-time equivalent staff at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre. The director of the psychiatric hospitals branch advises me that under the terms of the hiring freeze imposed in the spring there are only eight positions frozen.

Subsequent to that letter having been sent, and again I would remind the member we can find no record of having received the original, we got a copy on November 24. But subsequent to that letter, on the advice of the administrator and the medical director of the hospital to the director of the psychiatric hospitals branch, and through the assistant deputy minister to me, the freeze with respect to three psychiatric and one medical position has been lifted and those positions will be filled.

I have to tell the member that given the number of admissions involved in any year, and given we are talking about a psychiatric hospital system, dealing as we are in most cases with very disturbed people, there are going to be incidents. Nothing humanly possible can stop the fact that there will be so-called incidents from time to time.

What I am telling the member is that the people who are responsible for ensuring the integrity of the program at that hospital have repeatedly assured me that does not constitute a threat, particularly because we have allowed them to fill vacancies to maintain existing programs pending decisions on changing the programs. I anticipate there will be significant changes and, if the member wants, we can get into some of those.

Again I would say to the member that it would be premature and irresponsible to take the skimpy information that exists at present, even before the completion of an autopsy and before the completion of the analyses of the sedative involved, to try to relate the demise of this individual with the earlier matter.

Mr. McClellan: Supplementary, Mr.

Speaker: In view of the fact that the Queen Street hospital is obviously in a state of turmoil; and in view of the problems documented with respect to wandering patients and with respect to the problems of ex-psychiatric patients; and in view of the events of the past weekend where two patients at the Queen Street hospital were the victims of the kind of therapeutic misadventure that led to the death of Aldo Alviani a year ago -- the particular maladministration I refer to involved the use of the drug paraldehyde, which I gather is a relic of 19th-century medicine -- will the minister not agree now to call a public inquiry into the quality of mental health care in this province, particularly at Queen Street, with an emphasis on the safety of current practices and procedures involved in the use of drug therapy?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Again with respect, Mr. Speaker, I believe some of the methods developed by Madame Curie in the 19th century are still accepted as rather good medicine.

It is true that this particular hypnotic was introduced into medicine, I am advised, in 1882. I may say I am advised of that by a circular that was distributed by the pharmacy at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre many months ago to the staff in the hospital. It was widely distributed, I am told, so they would be aware. This is only a part of the routine procedure whereby the pharmacy does distribute information widely about the drugs in use in the hospital, so that everybody is current with whatever information is available.

While that is true, the fact the drug has been in use for 99 years does not in and of itself suggest it is outdated. My colleague the member for York East (Mr. Elgie), who is a rather renowned physician, suggests it is one of the safest drugs he knows of.

We had an inquiry into mental health services. About two years ago, the report was concluded. That commission under Dr. Abbyan Lynch at St. Michael's College went all over the province and was available to whoever wanted to make representations.

In addition, the problems the member is referring to are at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre. We recognize all is not what it should be at Queen Street. That is why we made certain changes early in the year and decided to have an objective third-party analysis of the operation. As soon as the report is completed, I fully intend to make decisions and get on with the job of reforming the programs there.

Mr. Van Horne: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In spite of the statement of the minister's colleague, the member for York East, who we all know is a doctor, my understanding from pharmacists who are working with drugs like this on a regular basis is that paraldehyde has not been used with any regularity in hospitals for at least 10 years.

Given, as I understand it, that it must be carefully stored in small amounts in well-closed bottles in a relatively cool place and protected from the light, and given that it must be inspected regularly, not only in the pharmacies but out on the wards, would the minister not agree the process of inspection was rather slack, possibly due to shortage of staff? Can he assure us that not only Queen Street but all psychiatric hospitals will have adequate staff for proper inspection of medications used in those institutions?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the last point is one of a number that are looked at when the psychiatric hospitals are reviewed for accreditation. To my knowledge, in my five years in the ministry we have never had any indication, with respect to any of the 10 psychiatric hospitals under my jurisdiction, that there was any problem with respect to staffing available to do that job.

Let me tell the honourable member the advice I had today about this drug and the procedures that are followed at Queen Street. First, the member must recognize the decision to prescribe it is a medical decision. It may well be carried out by a registered nurse, but the decision to prescribe and the dosage are the decisions of a physician.

Second, I am told this particular hypnotic is purchased by the pharmacy at Queen Street in half-litre bottles. When needed, the bottles are repackaged into 100-millilitre or four-ounce bottles because, as the member said, it is used in small quantities. Then it is stored in a locked, dark cabinet on the wards, and the wards use the small bottles quickly because they are small bottles. One does not have a large bottle sitting in a ward with the possible problems attendant on that. Finally, I am advised the pharmacy retrieves unused portions weekly.

If the member wants to go into more detail about the procedures used by the pharmacy at Queen Street, I would be glad to get that for him. I am advised they take every precaution, recognizing the properties and qualities of this particular hypnotic.

INTEREST RATES

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. Now that Saskatchewan has moved to introduce a home owners' protection act, which for the next year will protect home owners against foreclosures on their homes by the banks in cases where the home owner cannot afford to pay the increased rate of interest, will the government undertake to introduce a similar home owner protection law in Ontario?

Will the Premier assure the House that such a law will allow home owners who are in distress either to renew their mortgages at the existing rate or not to be forced to pay for the coming year while avoiding foreclosure? Will the government give that protection for people affected by the high interest rates?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I noticed a press report with respect to the proposed legislation in the province of Saskatchewan. I would tell the honourable member we are quite prepared to look at it, but to give any such assurance at this precise moment, I would not be in a position to do that.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has had the situation of high interest rates on his plate since this session resumed in the fall. The problem has been with the government since that time; it has not just come up this week. Is the Premier saying there is no answer at all within the government, at this time?

What solution does the government have for people who are in the situation of, for example, a Mr. Bonato in Windsor, who was foreclosed in August because he was behind in his mortgage payments? He found that not only was his home foreclosed, but so was the cabinet-making business which he had since 1958. He now finds himself evicted from his home as well as from his job, and both those structures are standing empty. There was no protection for Mr. Bonato. Is the government not prepared to move in order to ensure that that situation does not occur during 1982 as a result of the increase in mortgage rates by the banks?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, it is not just the banks. I am sure the honourable member is aware there are a number of mortgages, both new and renewals, that form the basis for some people's sole income. It is not quite as simple as singling out the institutional loans. There are many other forms of mortgage loans from other sources.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Premier is not aware of the fact that since April there have been 94 home foreclosures in Brantford; 48 home foreclosures in Kitchener-Waterloo; 30 home foreclosures in St. Thomas, and more were on the way when I was down there a week and a half ago; 13 in Cambridge; nine in Stratford, and the situation is the same in every other community across the province.

Homes are being foreclosed. People are not able to hang on to their homes because of the high interest rates and because their ability to pay has been undermined through unemployment. When the banks have had a $700-million increase in their profits this year, why could this government not show leadership the way that Saskatchewan has shown leadership by moving in and putting a moratorium on foreclosures for the next year so people can hang on to the most important investment in their lives?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I reiterate what I said, that this government is very concerned about the predicament facing a number of home owners. Again I would reiterate that it is not confined just to the institutional loans; it also applies to people who are renewing mortgages from private individuals where the income from those mortgages may very easily be the sole source of income for those people.

Mr. Cassidy: Don't cloud the issue. Talk about the banks and the financial institutions.

WAGE AND PRICE CONTROLS

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour about the very curious statements he made in this House yesterday, or in the committee yesterday, with respect to his view that there is now a need for some form of wage and price controls.

Could the minister explain why it is, when real wages have been falling in this province over the course of the last four years, and when there has been wage control on average workers in this province over the course of the last four years, that the minister's solution now is to bring in wage controls?

In particular, why is he proposing that, when this government was not prepared to look at the way the consumers were ripped off with the increase in the dairy price for milk; and this government is not prepared to put any limits on mortgage rates; and this government has contributed, through its taxes, to the increase in costs for energy and the increase in costs for health care? Why is the government talking out of both sides of its mouth in this issue?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, first, if the honourable member will take the time to read the

article carefully, what I said was "some sort of wage and price controls." I said perhaps we should be looking at some sort of an incomes policy, and that at the very least one should be looking at some sort of a voluntary program with some review of what is happening to incomes, prices, profits, dividends, as well as wages. If he is going to extrapolate from something, I think he should extrapolate totally.

Mr. Swart: Is that the deregulation program?

Mr. McClellan: Oh, the Premier (Mr. Davis) is fascinated by this.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Hang on, now. The context of that interview really was over the issue of layoffs and what one could do about them. I indicated that no matter how extensive a safety net is provided, and there is a considerable safety net provided through provincial and federal programs, these programs are certainly not enough to help all the people out there with problems, but they are a considerable help. They cannot help all the problems; we all understand that.

What I said was, what are the alternatives? The alternatives facing us are things like supporting uneconomic industry. The member knows that the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) and the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), through a variety of programs and initiatives, are doing all that can be expected of a province to stabilize industry in this province.

The point of the

article was -- the member knows what the point was -- that we are faced with a federal budget which has done nothing to stimulate the economy, a budget which discourages investment. It does absolutely nothing to accomplish what has to be done, and that is create jobs.

Mr. Foulds: What are you doing?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The honourable member knows where the fiscal levers are. If he does not, then he should not be sitting here. He knows where they are. There is no response to unemployment problems facing society today in that budget. If the member thinks there is, then he is in a different world from mine.

What are we faced with? We are faced with prices that are not remitting in the face of unemployment. We are faced with wages and incomes that show no evidence of any restraint after the Prime Minister's cry for voluntary restraints. We are not seeing any of that at all. Instead we are seeing production cutbacks, with maintenance of prices, and maintenance of present levels and increases requested for incomes. The Alberta physicians refused a 13.6 per cent increase. The member knows that as well as I do.

Surely, someone with the levers to do so has to look seriously at the issues facing us now. We need some stimulation of the economy; it was not there in that budget. That is the context of those remarks.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Surely the minister realizes his call for a voluntary incomes policy is a Trojan horse which will put workers in double jeopardy. First, they have the risks of layoffs and unemployment, and then they have the second risk which is that the minister and his government are going to come in and penalize them by making them accept substandard wage increases or no wage increases at all.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The member knows full well that the Treasurer, the Premier and the Minister of Industry and Tourism have those matters under their domain. I am expressing my view. If the member does not like it, I understand it. I understand labour's view about any incomes policy and I understand management's view on it.

I clearly stated, and I stand by it, that there has to be someone who is looking at prices, wages, incomes, dividends and profits, because I do not see any evidence of any restraint by anybody in society right now.

Mr. Mackenzie: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The minister's position is that of the Minister of Labour in Ontario. I think the minister is aware that the last time a Tory leader suggested wage and price controls in this country, the Liberals were quick to jump and impose them. I hate to see the Minister of Labour of Ontario suggesting them -- and it is not an add-on in his story; it is the main line, if one likes, in this particular story in the Toronto Star.

Is he advocating price and wage controls in this province? Will he or will he not give us a commitment that he will not agree to them in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, let us get the record straight. The honourable member should read the whole story. If the member wants to hear the whole interview, he can speak to Mr. Haliechuk and he will see very clearly what I said. I talked about being prepared to look at an incomes policy of some sort, be it voluntary or otherwise.

The member and I both know that labour's great complaint with the previous wage and price controls program was that it hit wages above everything else. I clearly said in that interview, and I will say it anywhere, if there is to be any approach to it, it has to look at all income in society.

3:30 p.m.

I do not think labour fundamentally disagrees with that. I understand there may be other areas that it thinks should be looked at at the same time. I understand that, but on this particular issue, let us not try to paint me into the corner of supporting the previous wage and price controls program. I know there are inequities in that; if the member does not think I know that, then he is being misled.

COBEX REMOVAL

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. The minister will be aware of a public meeting planned for tomorrow night in the city of Windsor, which two ministry officials, including Harold Collins, his pesticides control officer for southwestern Ontario, plan to attend.

Last Monday night, the same Mr. Collins, in a discussion with a group of people including residents and members of the Windsor Occupational Safety and Health Committee, told that group that the herbicide Cobex is no more harmful than aspirin, that there would be no danger to the city should there be a fire at the warehouse where some of the material is now stored, and, to use his words, "The entire affair over Cobex is a tempest in a teapot."

My question to the minister is this: Does he agree with this assessment by Mr. Collins, and if he does not, would he suggest that his official read up on the matter before tomorrow night's meeting so that he can approach it with the seriousness residents of the area expect?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I was not present at the meeting. I do not know what the official of my ministry may or may not have said. I do not know the honourable member's source of information, whether he himself was present or whether he is getting it reported by others in the community. I think it is always risky to start speculating upon secondhand or thirdhand information. I do not intend to get into that game.

Mr. Wrye: Given the concerns of the residents immediately surrounding Flanagan's warehouse in Windsor, and indeed the concerns of the entire community, will the minister make a commitment to the House that the Ministry of the Environment will do a thorough investigation of the facility once the Cobex has been removed to check for any remaining residues? While he is at it, will he respond to the proposal of the Municipal Liaison Committee of November 20 for a reporting of all transportation of hazardous substances through municipalities?

Finally, will he agree to change the current waybill system so that the ministry will be able to monitor the transportation of all hazardous substances to and from the province, as well as from one point to another within Ontario?

Hon. Mr.

Norton: I will certainly indicate to the honourable member that we will look at those three categories he has cited, provided he will agree in exchange that when he attends that meeting -- I trust he is going to be in attendance -- he will stand up and relate to his constituents the very fine and responsible job the staff of my ministry and the Ministry of Labour did in terms of supervising the handling of the Cobex, of ensuring that the member was well informed of the difficulties that were encountered as they were encountered, and of ensuring that it was, once again, safely repackaged in larger, safe containers, the transportation of which is now well under way out of this jurisdiction back to the owner of the material.

If he is willing to go forward and take an absolutely nonbiased position and say what a good job we have done, I will undertake to look at the other aspects of it.

USE OF DRUGS IN MENTAL HEALTH CENTRES

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to the Minister of Health, if I may, with respect to matters raised a few moments ago.

If, as the minister suggested a few minutes ago, paraldehyde is one of the safest drugs he knows, is he aware that Mr. Norman Davis was apparently given eight millilitres of paraldehyde, which has the effect of depressing the central nervous system and therefore calming the patient, in combination with 50 milligrams of Nozinan, and that the two drugs taken together could very well have led to a complete respiratory failure?

It illustrates again the concern that has been raised time and time again, most tragically with Aldo Alviani, that there are serious problems with respect to practices and procedures involved in the administration of drug therapy within our mental health centres. If the drug is so safe, why were two people rushed to hospital this weekend because of problems with it? Surely the minister will agree it is in the public interest to call a public inquiry that focuses on practices and procedures with respect to chemotherapy within our mental health centres.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I was quoting the opinion about that drug of a learned member of this House who is himself a distinguished physician. I was not commenting with respect to this case because I said in answer to the second question posed today by the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) that I am not privy to the results of any of the tests on the deceased. I am not privy to the autopsy report or to any tests carried out on the batches of the drug which have been seized which, by the way, have shelf lives of December 1984 and February 1985. I have been told that.

One of the coroners is Dr. Milton who is known to be a very thorough coroner. She is working on the case. At this point I think we should wait until the results of the autopsy are completed and we have some indication.

We all share the member's concern regarding what types of drugs are prescribed, in what combinations and how often. We must recognize that what to prescribe, in what dosages and frequency, is a medical judgement. We have a series of procedures in the hospitals for regular briefing and distribution of information.

As a result of the Alviani inquest, as it has become known, every one of the recommendations made by that coroner's jury has been acted upon. In fact I believe the member put a question on the Order Paper to me to that effect.

Mr. McClellan: I have not had an answer yet.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am thinking of the spring session. I thought there was a question.

Mr. McClellan: It is on the Order Paper now.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: If it is on the Order Paper this fall, it will be answered. The member must recognize that he has buried us in Order Paper questions and we are working our way out from under that.

We distribute information throughout the hospitals about various drugs that are in use, in particular to the nursing stations where it is then accessible to the medical and nursing staff.

We have also funded the Clarke institute of Psychiatry recently to the extent of $300,000 to carry out over the next 18 months, and I am not talking about a long drawn out thing, a review which to date has not been carried out anywhere else in the world to my knowledge on the use of drugs in therapy and restraint of psychiatric patients.

The first part of that program, which I believe will cost up to $50,000 of the $300,000 we have allocated to the project, will take place in May, five months from now, when the American Psychiatric Association will be holding its annual conference in Toronto. The Clarke Institute will invite a variety of international experts --

Mr. Boudria: Time.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It is a very important matter, even in Huron-Bruce.

Mr. Bradley: You got the wrong member.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The Clarke Institute will invite a variety of the international experts attending that conference to obtain or develop a consensus of information on clinical guidance and following that, applied research. That has not been done anywhere else in the world. It will probably produce as good or better results than some kind of royal commission that would likely only raise areas that require further research.

We have taken out that step and said to the Clarke Institute, "We want you to help us do what no other jurisdiction in the world apparently has done to date and that is to see if there is some better way to educate and continue to educate those who are responsible for the prescription and administration of drugs for restraint or therapy."

3:40 p.m.

Mr. McClellan: Supplementary: The minister and I have argued the merits of a public inquiry as opposed to in-house stuff and I do not propose to continue that.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It is not in-house.

Mr. McClellan: I want to ask the --

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. McClellan: Sit down. The minister had a chance to answer. He has almost unlimited opportunity to talk. Can he not listen for a second?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of respect --

Mr. Bradley: No great respect.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister of Health on a point of privilege.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order --

Mr. Speaker: I would submit there is nothing out of order.

Mr. McClellan: By way of supplementary, is the minister aware of the death of Pat Ellerton at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre on August 2, 1981? Can he confirm the death of Pat Ellerton was drug related? Is he also aware a coroner's inquest has been scheduled for January 5, 1982, into that death? Can the minister advise whether that drug-related death involved prescription drugs administered at Queen Street Mental Health Centre? Let me just leave it at that.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Let me finish my first answer, Mr. Speaker, and remind the honourable member we are not talking about an in-house review. I knew very well when we started to consider the question of this kind of work that if we tried to do it internally, the member and others would, perhaps rightly, say it was suspect. So we put it out to the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry, which is world renowned in research as well as treatment, to do this work.

With regard to this question, I am sorry I am not familiar with that name. I will check. I am aware there is a coroner's inquest coming up on another case. As the member knows, every time one of our patients dies in one of our programs it is investigated. That is a requirement of the law. I will see what information we have about that individual, if that is the one, and tell the member what I can. I will be circumspect, recognizing that if an inquest has been called there are limits to what I can reveal with respect to the individual case and the coroner.

Mr. Ruprecht: The minister has been made aware over a period of nine months there has been something substantially wrong in the Queen Street Mental Health Centre. He has also indicated to the director not to admit any member from a government source, whether they be aldermen or MPPs. He has indicated he did not want to talk to any of us in those days.

The incubation period of nine months is certainly over. On this side of the House we expect the minister should have some kind of an inquest or some kind of a checking period to look into the mismanagement of the hospital, and to tell this House precisely what he intends to do. When will he get active on producing results so the communities that surround this hospital will not be in a shambles?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Never one to lose a chance for a cheap shot, the honourable member apparently has not been listening to any of the discussion that has gone on here today or on Monday of this week. If he is not listening here, surely he reads the papers. But I will remind him again that we made changes in administration at Queen Street early in 1981. In the spring of 1981 we engaged outside consultants, including external psychiatric consultants. I said here again today that once their report is completed I intend to waste no time at all in getting on with the job of reforming Queen Street. It is that simple.

LIQUOR LICENCE BOARD OF ONTARIO

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations concerning the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario. The minister is no doubt aware that his director of investigation and enforcement in the business practices division, Mr. David Mitchell, was seconded by the deputy minister to act as director of the inspection branch at the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario from April 1980 until January 1981. Can the minister inform us what role, if any, Mr. Mitchell had in prompting the deputy minister to ask the Provincial Auditor to conduct a review of the activities of the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Total.

Mr. Bradley: Very good. I am glad to hear that.

Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The minister is no doubt aware that while this Mr. Mitchell was the director of the inspection branch of the liquor licence board, Mr. Mitchell was filing reports from time to time with the deputy minister. Would the minister indicate to what extent these reports influenced the deputy minister to request the Provincial Auditor to conduct a review of the activities of the LLBO? And would he please table these reports and any other reports by Mr. Mitchell on the subject of the liquor licence board in this House? Is the minister prepared to table those reports? And if not, why not?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, three questions were asked. The answer to the last two is no. To the first one I have to say it was on the basis of those reports that the deputy minister made many of the observations in his written request to the Provincial Auditor in the last week of January 1981.

Yesterday the honourable member was out of the House when I corrected the record to the effect that it had not been October 1981 -- that was incorrect on my part. Anyway, it was January 1981. There had been discussions in the six or eight months prior to that. The minister of the day, my colleague the honourable member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Drea) had indicated he had talked to the Provincial Auditor in the interim. But it was formalized in a direct way through a letter written to the auditor by the deputy minister at the end of January 1981, and that is what prompted the report done by the auditor.

The reports, of course, were based in large part on what had been heard about some of the things that have now been reported on. But they were prompted as well by the reports of Mr. Mitchell, who reported directly back to the deputy minister's office.

Mr. Bradley: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I regret the minister will not table these reports in the House; they would be very interesting. But would the minister indicate to what extent these reports by Mr. Mitchell influenced the liquor licence board to inform Mr. Mitchell in January 1981 that his services were terminated?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, it was just time for Mr. Mitchell to return. The job had been done by then, anyway, so --

Mr. Nixon: Was he fired?

Mr. T. P. Reid: Is that a new word for "fired"?

Hon. Mr. Walker: No, I do not think you would consider it that way. The reason he went down there --

Mr. T. P. Reid: That is not normal procedure.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Oh, it was very simple. The --

Mr. Smith: First you blew the whistle on him and then you got rid of him.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Wait a minute. The Leader of the Opposition has not figured out where he came from. Does he not understand? He was our investigator; we wanted the guy back. Why would we not?

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) -- and I am sorry he is not in his seat right now -- inquired about the matter of the resident at the Parkwood chronic care hospital who incurred an overpayment on his family benefits file as a result of receiving an inheritance from his mother's estate.

I have discussed this situation with my colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea). The actions taken by the ministry officials were in keeping with the requirements of both provincial and federal laws that all income not specifically excluded must be taken into account in determining a person's entitlement to social assistance. I am pleased to inform the House the Minister of Community and Social Services has directed that, notwithstanding the fact that an overpayment may have been created, no further recovery action will be taken. Any moneys already recovered will be refunded to the individual.

In the future a similar policy will be adopted in respect of all cases residing in chronic care situations where they receive an inheritance of less than $1,000.

URANIUM INDUSTRY EMPLOYEE SAFETY

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Recently a Mr. Thomas of your ministry conducted an investigation at the request of the United Steelworkers of America in Elliot Lake. Is the minister aware that while he found many unsafe conditions he termed hazardous, he indicated at the same time that the workers were not in imminent danger, and consequently the men had to go back into those conditions.

When are his inspectors going to apply Bill 70 to the workers in the Elliot Lake area so they have the protection of the act, as do all the other miners in this province?

3:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that problem, although I certainly will look into it. But the real issue the member is talking about is that uranium miners in this province come under federal jurisdiction. I know there are those who argue whether that is right or wrong, but that has been the legal

interpretation. I hope the member knows we have made efforts to try to ensure that changes are made to the Canada Labour Code to reflect the appropriate and good things in Bill 70.

It is my understanding we do have a firm assurance from the federal Minister of Labour that those changes will be introduced. I understand the discrepancy between the two acts, and the member knows it troubles me as much as him. I just do not know what I can do about it at the present time, other than encourage the federal government to get on with it faster than it has done to date.

Mr. Martel: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The federal minister has given this minister assurance it is going to come. Meanwhile, Saskatchewan uses its legislation by writing into the uranium industry licences that the Saskatchewan law will apply. In view of these points why does the minister not go that route? He could apply the Ontario law now with the federal commitment coming. If it happens to end up in a court case he would take his chances. But why not apply it and to hell with the federal government?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I am not personally aware of what has happened in Saskatchewan. I will explore it and see if it is something that is feasible for this province. But it is pretty difficult to ask inspectors to disobey the law. They are subject to certain charges for disobeying the law as it exists. Let us not confuse that with the fact we both have the same interest in getting the legislation comparable. There is no argument about that, and if there is anything to be done to hasten it I will be glad to do it.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Why does the minister find it so difficult to have his inspectors apply the provincial law in this case, when there is a collective agreement between the company and the union that agrees to the provincial standards?

Mr. McClellan: They could even sign an additional agreement.

Mr. Foulds: Can the minister reply to that? Why do they not implement the provincial standards when both the company and the union have agreed to it.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I hope the member understands that provincial officers can only act within the scope of the legal authority given to them. A collective agreement gives power to the parties. I would have to have counsel verify it but it is my view that under a collective agreement a refusal to work under terms of that agreement would result in a grievance, not in the calling in of an inspector, unless it was to see if there was compliance with the legislation that applied. That is my initial

interpretation, but I will be glad to see if there is anything other than that view that is legally correct. I will be glad to transmit that evidence to the member.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr. Treleaven from the standing committee on the administration of justice presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr26,

An Act to revive Waltham Creative Printing Limited.

Report adopted.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Grossman, first reading of Bill 191,

An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Motion agreed to.

PROVINCE OF ONTARIO SAVINGS OFFICE ACT

Mr. Philip moved, seconded by Mr. Grande, first reading of Bill 192,

An Act respecting the Province of Ontario Savings Office.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for an expanded Ontario savings office with the power to make loans and offer financial services as well as receive deposits.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN COLLECTION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Baetz moved second reading of Bill 175,

An Act to amend the McMichael Canadian Collection Act.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, it is my welcome duty to present to this assembly for debate, prior to second reading, Bill 175,

An Act to amend the McMichael Canadian Collection Act.

This bill will do four things. First, by virtue of

section 1, it will prescribe the uniquely Canadian focus of the collection with even greater precision. In doing that it draws language directly from the original 1965 agreement between the McMichaels and the province.

Second, by virtue of

section 2, it will ensure to an even greater extent than previously that artworks donated to the collection by many generous Canadians will not be disposed of without the complete understanding and the consent of the donor.

Third, by virtue of

section 3, it will make gift shop proceeds available for general purposes rather than for art acquisition alone.

Fourth, by virtue of sections 4 and 5, it will establish a position of founder-director emeritus, permit a salary for that position and install Mr. Robert McMichael in it.

To sum up, Mr. Speaker, this bill will continue and enhance the vision that the McMichaels had when they gave their collection, home and land to the crown in 1965. Further, it will keep faith with the intent and purpose of the many subsequent donors and the taxpayers of this province who ultimately made that vision a reality.

It will also permit Mr. McMichael's continued involvement in the important work of the gallery by creating specifically for him, and with his own considered and written endorsement, a new role tailored to his own personal strengths and abilities. In this role, Mr. McMichael will continue, as he has since April 1, 1973, to be the only trustee who is permitted by law to be compensated for his work on behalf of the collection.

As honourable members know, the McMichael's rights have been the subject of much concern and discussion during the last month. In view of the breadth and detail of that discussion, I would like to make several points.

The first and most important thing that must be said is that the McMichael Canadian Collection would not have come into being were it not for the wit and will of Robert and Signe McMichael. They had a dream. They were determined to see it realized. And it was realized, in part because of their manifest generosity. Ultimately, however, this dream could be realized because the people of Ontario, through the crown, were willing to assume responsibility for the collection's wellbeing and its enormous growth.

The second point I would make is that, as I set out in detail for this House on November 26, both the board of the collection and the government have honoured all of their obligations to the McMichaels and then some. Those obligations were first set out in the November 18, 1965, agreement by which the McMichaels made their gift to the people of Ontario.

Among the provisions, that agreement also provided that the collection would be managed by a five-member advisory committee composed of the McMichaels, one member appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, one by the Metro Toronto Conservation Authority and a chairman appointed by the four. That provision was entirely appropriate for that day.

4 p.m.

Over the next seven years, however, the collection grew tenfold in size and complexity. That growth was nourished by public support through donations of art, through government construction and operating grants and tax credits for donations received. By March 1971, a full 19 months before the McMichael Canadian Collection Act was introduced in this assembly, it was clear a special act would be required to provide for the growing collection. It should surprise nobody that this need was first seen by the McMichaels and the rest of the advisory committee.

At a meeting on March 29, 1971, the McMichaels and the other three members of the advisory committee resolved unanimously to prepare and consider, "a draft enactment establishing an appropriate administering agency for the gallery and collection," which would be, "a separate crown agency specifically established for the purpose and having express powers of management and proprietorship."

In accordance with the wishes expressed in that minute, the act to establish the McMichael Canadian Collection and make it a separate and distinctive crown agency was ultimately introduced. During the debate on that bill the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) argued it was essential to include in the bill a reference to "the obligations of the corporation, to carry out the obligations imposed on the crown," by the 1965 agreement.

The minister of the day said he was "satisfied that the intent of the bill is to accomplish just that." In other words, it was not necessary to include a reference to the 1965 agreement in the act because all of the agreement's essential points were provided for. The McMichaels were clearly satisfied as well. When the bill was brought forward they did not object, having recommended its enactment in the first place.

As honourable members know, the act provided for a fundamental change in the management and control of the collection. Instead of a five-member advisory committee, it provided for a board of trustees of between five and nine members which was intended to have "express powers of management and proprietorship."

Quite properly, the law made the McMichaels trustees for as long as they cared to serve. Equally properly, the Lieutenant Governor in Council was empowered to appoint the other seven including the chairman. The public interest required this basic change to reflect not only the public's ownership of the collection but to reflect the enormous public investment in the development of the collection.

It is perhaps instructive to reflect that, when the collection was given over to the province, it was situated on 14 acres of land. In the years since, the crown has added another 86 acres.

When the collection and property were given over to the province they were valued at about $815,000. In the years since, individual citizens and the government have invested an additional $23 million in its development and operation.

So in a very practical sense, as well as in the strictly legal sense, the collection has evolved into a major public institution. It is an institution that requires a strong board of trustees, competent to deal effectively with the heavy responsibilities that have been placed on the board, and a board of trustees composed to represent the public at large and to be accountable to it.

As Mr. J. Allyn Taylor, the distinguished chairman of the McMichael board stated, "The trustees are accountable to the government for the affairs of the collection. The taxpayers of Ontario at the present time provide virtually the sole operating support for the McMichael Canadian Collection. The board ... of which the McMichaels are members, must always have the full authority to run the affairs of the collection if the trustees are to be held accountable."

Held accountable! We do hold them accountable. We hold many boards accountable. We can do this only if, with that accountability, we give the boards the authority to match the responsibility. This we feel is the only way we can operate effectively our great cultural institutions at the appropriate arm's length from government.

I want to say here that the people of Ontario have been faithfully served by the board of trustees of the McMichael Canadian Collection, and I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the citizens of Ontario who have constituted this board. They are: Mr. and Mrs. McMichael, Mrs. Anna Ruth Atkins, Mrs. Cicely Bell, Mr. Robert Dowsett, Mr. Stuart Ellis, Mr. Hamilton Larrett-Smith and Mr. Jack Wildridge. They have all devoted a tremendous amount of their time and talent to the affairs of the collection.

I am sure none of the trustees would take issue with me if I single out J. Allyn Taylor for special mention. Mr. Taylor has been an outstanding chairman ever since the act came into force on April 1, 1973. He is a distinguished Canadian. He has been the chief executive officer of a major financial institution, a director of a number of Canadian companies, the chancellor of an eminent Canadian university, and an officer of the Order of Canada. He has been appointed recently as chairman of the Ontario Press Council.

In his reasoned amendment, the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) has submitted that the letter as well as the spirit of the 1965 agreement must be complied with.

It is impossible to comply with the letter for a number of reasons. Although the general intent and spirit of the act and of the agreement are in harmony, they accomplish that intent in different ways. Even the name of the collection has changed. Because of those differences, the two are inconsistent and really cannot stand together. Note that control of all aspects of the collection was vested in an advisory committee under the agreement, but under the act it is vested in a board of trustees. It is apparent that, legally speaking, control cannot be vested in both.

I believe the true meaning of the comments of the minister of the day, Mr. McNie, is that it was unnecessary to refer specifically to the 1965 agreement in the act because all its essential points, its spirit and its objectives had been restated. It would seem that Mr. McMichael's

interpretation of this comment, that the agreement itself would continue to apply, was incorrect, and in fact impossible.

For example, if the act were to embrace the letter of the agreement as well as the spirit, Robert McMichael would never have been paid a salary as the director of the collection. I want to make it very clear that the government is in no way begrudging providing Mr. McMichael with a salary for his services. On the contrary, the new amendment to the 1972 legislation provided for a salary, and quite appropriately so, but if we stuck to the letter of the earlier 1965 agreement that would not have been possible. He and Mrs. McMichael would still be required to donate to the crown all suitable art work they ever acquired personally.

Another example of the inappropriateness of the 1965 agreement is that agreement prohibits the display of anything except paintings. Today, an important and much loved part of the collection is its large display of sculpture and Indian artefacts, which nobody would want us to disperse.

The agreement effectively made the collection an operating division of the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Would the member suggest it revert to that status, rather than an independent crown agency as set out in the act?

The only individual power which was not carried forward in the act was Mr. McMichael's right, with advisory committee approval, to enrich the crown by building new buildings at his own expense. Under the act, all new buildings are paid for by the corporation itself, although Mr. McMichael is still free to donate money for the purpose. He has understandably never requested the reinstatement of this power, in the light of the changed circumstances.

In his reasoned amendment, the member for Riverdale also states that the size of the board of trustees should be reduced to five from nine, and that the appointment of the chairman should be "consistent with and comply with the provisions of the agreement respecting the advisory committee as originally established." In the light of everything that has happened at the collection over the last 16 years, that would be totally inappropriate.

The McMichaels' counsel has submitted that the advisory committee as constituted originally "gave and was intended to give control to Robert and Signe McMichael of the advisory committee." Such contemplated control, if ever envisaged, would be impossible today because it ignores totally the growth of the collection, almost entirely at public expense, since 1965.

4:10 p.m.

The McMichaels have always had a respected voice in the control of the collection. However, under both the act and the agreement they have always constituted a minority of the collection's governing body; that is, two of five in the agreement, two of five to nine under the act.

The crown's majority influence reflects the crown's sole ownership of, financing of and responsibility for the collection, the fact that donors such as the McMichaels must give up control over their donations to make them true gifts for tax and other purposes, and the fact that the monetary value of the McMichaels's contribution to the collection is now less than 10 per cent of the whole invested,

whereas at the time of the agreement it represented nearly 100 per cent.

The trustees of the collection and the government are unequivocally dedicated to ensuring that the McMichaels' wishes about the ambiance of the collection will be sustained. That is why the board, with the support of the government, has embarked upon a multimillion-dollar renovation program. This program is going to great lengths to ensure the safety of the collection and of the hundreds and thousands of people, including school children, who visit it every year. The renovations will also make it possible for people in wheelchairs to see the whole of the collection for the first time.

Equally important, in this program the board is also going to great lengths to ensure that the renovations will be in full harmony with the existing architecture. The public's safety, of course, must take precedence. The board is convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that the architects can achieve the safety requirements and at the same time sustain the existing ambiance of the collection.

The board and the government are also dedicated to ensuring that the character of the collection is maintained. That is why the bill before us describes with even greater precision than the act, that the original nature of the content of the collection will be sustained.

As I have told this House before, nothing can ensure the integrity of the collection more thoroughly than the law itself. It is the law which can guarantee the objectives in perpetuity. It is not human beings who can maintain that.

Therefore, I would submit it is in the best interests of the people of the province, the board, the McMichaels and anybody else who shares a passion for this magnificent collection, to see this bill passed expeditiously.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I want to make my comments relatively brief and to the point. I deeply regret that this matter of the McMichael collection has become a matter for the amount of public debate and the amount of continuing debate that will undoubtedly ensue following the discussion of this bill.

I do not believe it is in the interests of the province, which after all must wish in the future to be able to attract similar donations, nor in the interests of the cultural community, of which the McMichaels have been giant members. I do not believe it is in anybody's interest to have a lengthy, personalized discussion about these great benefactors, Bob and Signe McMichael, who have done so much for Ontario.

I do not want to go into detail, and I will restrain myself from doing so, about the statements made in this House by the minister himself, the way in which the letter from Mr. Robinette on behalf of Mr. McMichael was quoted out of context, the kinds of references made inside and outside the House by the minister himself.

I will try to confine myself to what has actually happened. The bill which has been presented to us now contains virtually nothing of importance. In point of fact, the draft bill, which came to light when we raised it in the House, was gutted by the minister and this rather innocuous bill has been substituted for it simply so that the minister can say he did not back away from presenting a bill at all.

In fact, we have noted that the draft bill which was talked about in this House was not an early draft but actually a relatively late draft and obviously would have been the subject of the bill presented had it not been brought to public attention and we not had debate in this House.

I note, I would like to say from the outset, that the member for Riverdale -- who I must say showed a great deal of good judgement when he questioned Mr. McNie and the government back in 1973, I believe it was, and seemed to sense that there was something afoot even then in the government's mind -- has on this occasion given notice to the House that he intends to introduce a reasoned amendment.

It will be our intention to support his reasoned amendment and the Speaker will well understand, the way things are handled in the House, we will not be given a chance to vote on his amendment but rather we will be asked to answer the question, "Shall the bill now be read a second time?" At that time we shall vote against, so as to show our support for the amendment presented by the member for Riverdale.

Depending upon what happens then, assuming that the bill will be read a second time because of the weight of numbers on the government side, it will be our intention to send the bill to standing committee. In standing committee, we hope to have an opportunity to question pertinent witnesses and discuss some of the general aspects of the McMichael collection, the legislation that is being presented to us and related matters.

It is obvious from the minister's statement that the minister is admitting very freely now something which my predecessor in this House, Mr. McNie -- a good friend of mine -- did not believe was the case. He is admitting in fact that the act passed in 1973 did take the place of -- in the minister's mind, at any rate -- the solemn agreement signed by Hon. John Robarts with the McMichael family at the time, in 1965, that the McMichael collection began as a matter for the public interest.

In fact, it seems to me that had it been admitted at the time that the purpose of the act was to, in various ways, remove from the record and remove from legal standing the original agreement, I suspect the House and the public of Ontario might have acted very differently at the time. The reassurance given by the minister at that time, that the act was merely the embodiment of the original agreement, probably led to the quiescence which was noted at the time on the part of the cultural community. Had they known then that the government was using the act as way of getting away from Hon. Mr.

Robarts's signature on that agreement, I believe there would have been an outcry from the public, and a very justifiable one indeed.

I believe the minister is playing games with history today by suggesting to this House that the McMichaels well understood the implications of the act and the cultural community well understood it and they all wanted the original agreement replaced by this act. I seriously doubt that. I have good reason to seriously doubt that. I do not believe the public of Ontario will believe that.

To understand the situation, we have to really go back to the very basic idea that underpins the McMichael collection and the great donation made originally. I would ask all of us to consider this in the context of whether the government of Ontario has a better record, through its various boards and agencies, of administering things like an artistic collection; whether they have really a better record than the McMichael family.

Mr. Stokes: They have mishandled their own collection around these buildings for years.

Mr. Smith: Yes, that is right. As the member for Lake Nipigon points out, the collection that the government of Ontario owns in this very building has been mishandled for many years and only recently has an attempt been made to bring it to some reasonable level.

In fact, the Ontario government's record does not really stand up beside the record of the McMichael family. The McMichael collection at Kleinburg, even without a tremendous amount of publicity, without all the advertising that the Ontario government is fond of, has been able to attract a greater number of visitors with much greater success and aesthetic enjoyment than, I suspect, any other collection in Ontario, with the exception of when the King Tut exhibition was present here in Toronto.

4:20 p.m.

In general terms, the record of the McMichaels is enviable indeed. That is not to downplay the role of the board in any way. Over the years, the board has given great service to Ontario. It is interesting to note how that board was originally formed and what happened subsequently.

Once Mr. and Mrs. McMichael thought of it, the idea of that collection could not go forward in the way it might have had the McMichaels been extremely wealthy people like the Guggenheims and the Rockefellers. If they had been that wealthy, they could have set up their own collection on their own land in any way they pleased and controlled it in perpetuity exactly as they wished. But they were not wealthy enough to do that. They were sufficiently wealthy, I am happy to say, to acquire the collection and make a generous donation, but they were not super wealthy like the Rockefellers or others. They were not in a position to run the thing exactly as they might have wished.

Similarly, the government on its part did not feel it could simply acquire collections like this on the open market very easily. The government did not see its way clear to that kind of activity. The government did not have great experience in this regard, and Mr. Robarts felt, I think correctly, that a unique arrangement was required, something different than either the government setting out to build its own museum somewhere or the McMichaels setting out to run their own collection. In fact, a sharing was required, something perhaps unprecedented. In 1965, they came up with an agreement to share the responsibility for the operation of this collection and its future development.

Of course, things have progressed. The minister has pointed out there has been an evolution of the collection and the grounds. That, I would think, is a good thing. It should not stagnate. Mr. Robarts was a far-seeing man who believed at the time that there might well be an evolution of the collection. I do not believe he ruled that out when he put his signature to the agreement.

Because the McMichaels were not super wealthy and Ontario was not in a position to start its own collection of the Group of Seven, a sharing was agreed upon. This sharing was not quite 50-50. The province was favoured, and understandably so where public funds are involved. The sharing, in terms of control, had a board consisting of the McMichaels as two persons, two other persons appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council and a chairman agreeable to the four of them but appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Therefore, the government had a veto over anybody who might occupy that position.

This board functioned very well. At the time of the 1973 act, there was no clamouring to have this board supplanted in some way. The McMichaels were brought in to listen to the act the government presented on behalf of the cabinet, the McMichael Collection Act of 1973. The minister says we changed the board from five persons to a board consisting of from five to nine persons, whi