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

December 15, 1978

31st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L152 - Fri 15 Dec 1978 / Ven 15 déc 1978

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ONTARIO-QUEBEC INSURANCE AGREEMENT

COTTMAN TRANSMISSION

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE BENEFITS INCREASE

CLINICAL FUNDING COMMISSION

PROVINCIAL COURTS LEGISLATION

RURAL POLICING

BODY SEARCHES BY POLICE

ONTARIO HYDRO CHAIRMAN

VISITOR

BYPRODUCT POWER FROM NUCLEAR STATIONS

ONTARIO STATUS OF WOMEN COUNCIL

SPECIAL EDUCATION

DILLON REPORT

OHIP SUBROGATION AGREEMENT

BESTLINE PRODUCTS OF CANADA

TRIBUTES TO MEMBER FOR WENTWORTH

BESTLINE PRODUCTS OF CANADA

ORAL QUESTIONS

JURISDICTION OF OMBUDSMAN

PAPER MILL CONTROL ORDERS

MICROWAVE RADIATION

OTTAWA PSYCHIATRIC FACILITIES

QUEBEC POLICY ON CONSTRUCTION HIRING

GATT NEGOTIATIONS

UNION HIRING PRACTICES

LUNG CANCER CASES

KIMBERLY-CLARK FIRE

REFUSE INCINERATOR

BEARE ROAD LANDFILL SITE

SPECIAL EDUCATION

FARM DRAINAGE

ENERGY BOARD HEARINGS

OHIP DATA PROCESSING SERVICES

PETITION

CANTRAKON DEVELOPMENT

REPORTS

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

STANDING RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

ONTARIO STATUS OF WOMEN COUNCIL

STANDING ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE COMMITTEE

BIRTHDAY OF MEMBER FOR ST. GEORGE

STANDING PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

DEPARTMENT STORE TAKEOVER BID

MOTIONS

SITTING OF HOUSE

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

BUSINESS REFERRED TO COMMITTEES DURING RECESS

SITTINGS OF COMMITTEES

STANDING PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

APPOINTMENT OF OMBUDSMAN

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS ACT

ANGLICAN CHURCH OF CANADA ACT

TRANSLATION FACILITIES

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

SUPPLY ACT

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT (CONCLUDED)

THIRD READING

BUDGET DEBATE (CONCLUDED)

ROYAL ASSENT

PROROGATION SPEECH

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ONTARIO-QUEBEC INSURANCE AGREEMENT

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, two days ago I announced that we had reached an agreement with the province of Quebec to extend insurance protection to Ontario drivers involved in accidents in our sister province. I would now like to outline some of the details of that plan.

The broad principle of the agreement is that Quebec will look after its own residents involved in automobile accidents while Ontario insurers will look after Ontario-insured residents. To this end, Ontario will amend its current accident benefits coverage in the standard automobile policy used by all insurers to add supplemental coverage for Ontario motorists involved in accidents in Quebec. This added coverage will guarantee that Ontario residents, as well as spouses or dependants, will be reimbursed for bodily injury or death, just as if they were Quebec residents.

In return, the Quebec Automobile Insurance Board waives all of its rights to take action against an Ontario-insured person who is at fault in a Quebec accident.

The agreement is not based on statistical data because none is available. However, our best estimate is that as a result of the settlement the cost of accidents in Quebec involving Ontario-insured drivers will be split 50-50 between Ontario insurers and Quebec.

There is an additional benefit for Ontario insurers. First, they are guaranteed that their Ontario insurer will pay up to the level permitted by Quebec law. However, the Quebec plan only pays loss of earnings up to 90 per cent of $18,000. We have prescribed that Ontario accident benefits will be payable in addition to that. That means that an individual earning in excess of $18,000 and involved in an accident in Quebec may receive up to an additional $140 per week based, of course, on actual earnings.

The program is not expected to cost Ontario insureds extra because claims paid under Ontario no-fault benefits should be offset by a reduction in the claims against the third party liability portion of the policy. However, since insurance costs are actuarily based, increased travel in Quebec and increases in the number of accidents in Quebec involving Ontario residents could increase the costs somewhat in the future.

The Quebec automobile insurance plan is a social welfare plan which gives the public certain statutory rights to claim. It is similar to our Workmen’s Compensation Board legislation and it eliminates entirely the concept of a suit against the at-fault driver.

Under the Quebec plan claims for such things as pain and suffering, loss of expectation of enjoyment of life, dismemberment and physical or emotional impairment are determined on a formula which provides a maximum payment of $20,000. In short, there is no provision for tort.

However, we do not intend to limit the right of recovery by Quebec residents for accidents in Ontario. Ontario has never distinguished between residents and non-residents and Quebeckers will continue to have the right to sue in Ontario courts.

The essence of the agreement is that we in Ontario are treating our Quebec visitors to Ontario just the same as our residents. Quebec is treating its Ontario visitors the same as its own residents.

The agreement will be implemented as soon as we can make the required amendment to our regulations. I hope that this can be done by the start of the new year, although I am unable at this time to make a firm commitment on that.

This agreement is fair and equitable and was reached during long and amicable negotiations between the superintendent of insurance for Ontario, Mr. Murray Thompson, and the president of the Quebec Automobile Insurance Board, Mr. Robert de Coster. We believe this agreement is a precedent in Canada and will be viewed favourably as a format for other negotiations. We are offering our assistance to the other provinces and to our American neighbours in their negotiations with Quebec. We are confident that they will receive the same co-operation and mutual understanding that we have encountered with the province of Quebec.

Viewed overall, this is indisputably a better deal for insured Ontario motorists who travel in Quebec. Our people are guaranteed full payment to the extent permitted under Quebec law without deduction for their own negligence. At the same time Ontarians will enjoy the additional benefits of Ontario accident coverage, again on a no-fault basis.

Mr. Speaker, I think I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that at this very moment in the province of Quebec my counterpart, Madame Fayette, has started a press conference to acquaint the residents of Quebec with this type of agreement.

COTTMAN TRANSMISSION

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce that my ministry has reached an agreement with Cottman Transmission of Canada Limited. An assurance of voluntary compliance under the Business Practices Act has been signed by Cottman and my staff.

Under the terms of the document, Cottman agrees to:

1. Revise sales practices and provide full disclosure of the service package and prices before removing a transmission from a consumer’s car.

2. Employ experts capable of diagnosing transmission problems, not just salesmen.

3. Commit staff and financial resources towards the establishment of an industry complaint-handling body.

4. Respond to all existing and future consumer complaints.

This agreement between my ministry and Cottman in no way affects outstanding charges against the company. I want to assure the people in this province that we will continue to monitor the entire transmission industry to ensure that the consumers get a fair deal.

Cottman Transmission is the first franchiser to come to an agreement with my ministry and it is hoped that others will follow suit shortly.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a few words regarding a publication in the newspaper this morning. In no way, shape or form does this agreement involve only minor changes in Cottman’s operations. I am going to table today and I will send to every member exactly what they signed. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, Cottman surrendered. They not only surrendered, they surrendered unconditionally. I want to extend to the members of this House and to the gallery --

Mr. T. P. Reid: Whatever you say, General Custer!

An hon. member: General MacArthur -- “I shall return.”

Hon. Mr. Drea: I never have to return.

I want to extend to the members of this House and to the gallery that we are going to continue our ghost-car operations on Cottman and by appointment, so we don’t inconvenience you, Mr. Speaker, you can ride in the front seat while we police them. Because in no way, shape or form, notwithstanding the fact that I respect death-bed conversions, the problem is that quite often on the death bed the patient recovers and forgets.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE BENEFITS INCREASE

Hon. Mr. Norton: In view of the plans to prorogue the House today and the likelihood that it will not resume for a couple of months, I would like to advise the House of changes to the income maintenance programs of my ministry which will come into effect during that period of time. I am pleased to say that the cabinet has approved an additional annual expenditure of approximately $33 million to increase by about six per cent the allowance that is being paid to family benefits clients and to those who receive general welfare assistance.

The increase in allowance to recipients under the Family Benefits Act program will be shown in the cheques issued at the end of January 1979 and increases to GWA recipients will be reflected in cheques issued at the beginning of February 1979. More than 175,000 recipients and their dependants will be affected by this. In addition to the general rate increase, back-to-school allowances will increase from $25 to $30 for children aged four to 12 and from $50 to $60 for children aged 13 years and over.

Three distinct and important reforms to our administration of the Family Benefits Act will take effect the first day of 1979. The first reform affects our benefits for the families of severely handicapped children. The basic eligibility of families who make application for benefits to meet the extraordinary needs of a severely handicapped child living at home will be decided by a system which focuses more directly and more generously on family income than has been the case in the past. The precise amount of the entitlement, which may vary from $25 to $150 per child, will be determined from an assessment of the actual and extraordinary needs of each particular child.

Our use of family income as a fundamental criterion of eligibility represents an aspect of our effort to help families identify for themselves whether they may qualify for assistance. Also, clients of my ministry who presently are receiving a maintenance allowance benefit under the Vocational Rehabilitation Services Act will, as of January 1, 1979, be integrated into the disability provision of the Family Benefits Act. Eligibility for a full Gains-D entitlement will increase significantly the allowances available to handicapped persons in training programs.

Third, a significant administrative change will affect those recipients who are able to earn rental income from boarders in their homes. We shall no longer reduce allowances by a fixed percentage of rental income. We shall instead establish a flat rate system of chargebacks in amounts of $30 a month for boarders 18 years of age and older, $20 a month for boarders under 18 years and $20 for roomers of any age. This is a significant departure and one which I believe will be a positive incentive for the pursuit of additional income.

[10:15]

Adequate provision for the financial needs of those who must rely on public assistance has been a consistent source of concern to the government since I announced the most recent set of increases last year. It is a concern which I know is shared by the members of this House and by many others during a period of time when consumer prices continue to rise and when the economy is failing to grow at projected rates, causing revenue difficulties.

As a government we have felt a clear responsibility both to manage efficiently the province’s financial resources and to identify and continue to grapple with the needs of those citizens who are in need of assistance. My colleague, the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Maeck), made clear that commitment earlier this month when he discussed with the House the guaranteed income supplement to senior citizens. The government’s intention to ensure a pass-through of the additional allowance will be of direct benefit to aged people in this province.

The difficulties which face all people who must support themselves and their families on small fixed incomes are genuine and sometimes very pressing ones. I do not suggest that we can remedy those difficulties by these measures, but we can alleviate some of the harshest financial worries faced by recipients of social assistance.

The increases I have announced will help to do that. I can assure the House that I and the ministry will continue to monitor consistently the adequacy of our allowances and the needs which they attempt to satisfy.

CLINICAL FUNDING COMMISSION

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I shall be tabling the report in a few moments of the commission on clinical funding. The commissioner, the Honourable Mr. Justice Grange, was appointed to review the operation and administration of the clinical funding regulation under the Legal Aid Act.

The clinical funding regulation was passed in 1976 to provide a basis for the preservation of the then existing legal aid clinics. The regulation has since then provided the machinery for the funding and expansion throughout the province of some 30 community-based legal aid clinics. The development of legal aid clinics had reached the point where a thorough independent review was needed of whether the funding and administration of the clinical portion of the legal aid plan was appropriate.

Mr. Justice Grange was good enough to accept the appointment as commissioner to conduct the review. The commissioner has produced a report which is, in my view, excellent. It addresses quite openly and directly the major concerns and issues which have arisen in the clinical funding process. The commissioner has made a series of recommendations for the amendment of the clinical funding regulation. I am in general agreement with the bulk of the recommendations. A few matters, particularly the appointment and the composition of the clinical funding committee, will need some further examination before a final position can be taken.

The proposed changes to the present structure of the regulation are extensive. There is a real question as to whether it will be possible to achieve such an extensive restructuring of the present regulation and its administration before the end of the present funding cycle, which is about to begin with respect to the next fiscal year. A good deal will, of course, depend on the position of the law society as the development of new regulations is assigned by the Legal Aid Act to the law society, subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

On the assumption that it will not be possible to achieve a complete restructuring before the next funding cycle, may I express the hope that the present members of the clinical funding committee will continue in their work until the new committee can be appointed and that they will, so far as possible under the present regulation, adopt, to the extent they can, the general approach recommended by the commissioner.

In expressing this hope, I am aware of the heavy burden assumed by members of the clinical funding committee. I would certainly join with Mr. Justice Grange in stating that the profession, the government, the clinics, and the public stand greatly in their debt.

May I, in conclusion, express my gratitude to Mr. Justice Grange for this excellent report, which will have a major impact on the future of legal aid in Ontario.

PROVINCIAL COURTS LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: In a few minutes I shall be tabling the report of the former Chief Justice of Ontario, the Honourable G. A. Gale, concerning certain aspects of the Provincial Courts Act.

Ten years ago, in response to the recommendations contained in the McRuer report on civil rights, the Provincial Courts Act was passed. This act established an Ontario Judicial Council to advise the Attorney General on the appointment of provincial court judges and to deal at the primary level with complaints and allegations of judicial misbehaviour.

The work of the judicial council has been exceptionally valuable in performing these tasks and thus in maintaining respect for the judiciary and public confidence in the administration of justice. However, I felt that 10 years’ experience with the operation of the act afforded an excellent opportunity to undertake a review of the legislation.

On November 29, 1917, I asked the Honourable G. A. Gale to study the responsibilities and the functioning of the judicial council, with particular reference to the appointments and discipline of provincially-appointed judges. After consultation with interested parties and extensive comparative research, Mr. Gale has submitted his report on this difficult and sensitive topic.

The report recommends greater public involvement on the judicial council, through the appointment of more lay representatives to the council. It suggests no major changes in the procedures the council uses to review prospective judicial appointments. It does recommend that prospective appointees be qualified lawyers with at least five years of practice behind them.

On the subject of disciplinary procedures, the report makes a number of recommendations. It points out that the council’s role is to investigate and to advise and that this role must be clearly separated from formal inquiries and disciplinary decisions. It recommends that a formal recommendation from the judicial council should be a condition precedent to cabinet ordering a judicial inquiry into the behaviour of any judge.

The report recommends that

part II of the Public Inquiries Act should apply to judicial council proceedings. It suggests that the judicial council should not be given express powers to reprimand judges since its responsibility is an advisory, not a disciplinary one. It recommends that the judicial council should be able to order that a judge be compensated for costs incurred during an investigation.

Finally, Mr. Gale advises against the provision of any formal rights of appeal from a judicial inquiry into misbehaviour by a judge, arguing that the final decision must rest with the Lieutenant Governor in Council, rather than the courts.

My staff and I are reviewing the report and will be discussing it with the judiciary. The quality of justice, of course, depends in no small measure on the quality of the judiciary. I am confident that the recommendations contained in the report will enhance even further the high esteem which the public has for the distinguished men and women who serve on the provincial bench.

RURAL POLICING

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, on November 28 the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) questioned me about an unfortunate shooting incident on November 18 near Thessalon, as well as about the policy of the Ontario Provincial Police in regard to having two officers patrolling in each cruiser at night.

I have reviewed this matter with the commissioner of the OPP. I have been advised that the force’s existing, written policy provides discretionary authority to field personnel to use two-member patrol cars in unusual situations. In addition, it is mandatory that two officers respond to calls involving domestic disputes, occurrences where firearms or other offensive weapons are suspected of being used, or in disturbances in public drinking establishments.

This policy was put in place following discussions with the Ontario Provincial Police Association. During contract negotiations with the association in 1976, the association representatives proposed that two-man patrols be carried out in vehicles between the hours of 4 p.m. and 8 a.m. the following day. This proposal was withdrawn in favour of a joint study of the situation by the force and the association.

This comprehensive survey revealed that, to institute two-officer patrols, the force would have to reduce the quality of investigations and response time. In addition, some services now provided would have to be eliminated and, in many areas, requests for police assistance would have to be answered on a priority system.

The study also suggested that to free up sufficient manpower, legislative changes would be required to limit reportable vehicle collisions to those involving personal injury.

It was further estimated that 1,200 additional constables would be required to implement the proposal, an increase of approximately one third in the size of the force. Based on 1975 costs, the expenditure for additional manpower and equipment would be well over $35 million in the first year.

The commissioner has further advised me that from experience the force does not generally regard persons in stolen cars as dangerous. In this regard, I will quote from his report to me:

“Usually, in cases where motor vehicles are stolen, the perpetrators of these offences are under 18 years of age and the vehicles are stolen as a prank or a means of transportation. We do not consider the arrests of these people potential violent confrontations. The shooting of provincial Constable Duffield was an isolated case which was unpredictable. Had Constable Duffield been accompanied by a second officer, there is no indication that the presence of an armed and dangerous person would have been detected.”

The member made reference in particular to police services in remote or rural areas. I am pleased to advise him that the government has recently committed $13 million for a vastly improved communications system for the OPP. This will be in operation in the next fiscal year and will substantially improve the ability of the force to respond.

BODY SEARCHES BY POLICE

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The member for London North (Mr. Van Horne) posed questions relating to the search of certain individuals by members of the Ontario Provincial Police on July 20, 1978. The member indicated that the suspects were ordered to get out of their motor vehicle --

Mr. Sargent: Write him a letter and tell him about it.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: -- and made to strip on the side of a public highway in order that a body search could be carried out. At the time I indicated that I did not think this was the normal procedure and that it would be unusual that such a search would be warranted. 1 have now had an opportunity of inquiring into the circumstances surrounding the incident the member has described.

I must say that his short description of the circumstances surrounding the search does not fully and properly describe the event in question, according to the information that has been provided to me by the Ontario Provincial Police.

The relevant charges have now been disposed of, so I can indicate there is no question in my mind that the police officers who stopped the motor vehicle and questioned the three occupants had reasonable and probable grounds to search both the automobile and the occupants. It should be noted that the traffic at the time was quite light and the automobile stopped in a remote area with no residences nearby. The place of the search was apparently a gravel road which was not normally heavily travelled, except on weekends.

It should be noted that the individuals who were searched were stopped at about 8 o’clock on a Thursday night. The three individuals who were searched were each searched separately. They were asked to step behind a police cruiser so they would be out of sight, should a motor vehicle pass by. Two of the three individuals consented to the search. It should be noted that at no time were any of the individuals required to remove all of their clothing. The individuals were asked to lower their trousers and undergarments and responded. As a result of this search marijuana was found on their persons.

Mr. Nixon: That ought to make the headlines.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: As I indicated earlier, I feel that it should not be normal procedure to require that individuals remove any part of their clothing in public view and that every effort should be made to see that this does not take place --

Mr. Roy: It’s a pretty safe position, Roy.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: -- and that body searches take place in private. Having regard to what took place in a remote area out of view of residences --

Mr. Kerrio: Did you charge them with indecent exposure?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: -- I do not think it can be said that the searches were conducted in public view. It is difficult if not impossible to establish hard and fast rules with respect to body searches that are to be followed on each and every occasion. Each case must be dealt with after carefully evaluating all the circumstances. Members of the Ontario Provincial Police are instructed to exercise extreme caution to ensure that the privacy of individuals is safeguarded.

Police officers are instructed to search in as discreet a manner as possible and, as I indicated, not to search in public view. It goes without saying that unless someone’s life is in danger, women will only be searched by female police personnel.

From time to time body searches are required. This is especially so in the case of drug-related offences. Body searches are, in fact, necessary, otherwise it would be a simple thing for offenders to thwart police investigations.

I hope the foregoing explains the incident in question and outlines generally Ontario Provincial Police policy in this regard.

ONTARIO HYDRO CHAIRMAN

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that the chairman of Ontario Hydro, Mr. Robert Taylor, has agreed to a six-month extension of his term of service which under normal circumstances would have ended on December 31, 1978. In his five years of service to date, Mr. Taylor has offered commendable leadership to this, the most important of our public utilities, during a period of changing and demanding circumstances.

Mr. Laughren: He sure knows how to borrow.

Hon. Mr. Davis: While I shall have more to say when Mr. Taylor officially leaves his post I want to take this opportunity to commend him on behalf of the government and people of Ontario for the quality of service that he has rendered and to thank him for his agreement to a further extension of his appointment in order to provide for a full and orderly transfer of responsibilities to his successor.

That successor, Mr. Speaker, will be Mr. Hugh L. Macaulay. Mr. Macaulay will become a member of Ontario Hydro’s board of directors --

Mr. Nixon: Who?

Mr. Martel: What did you say?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Hugh L. There’s a Robert and there’s a Hugh.

Mr. Laughren: And away we go. A nice, non-partisan, objective appointment.

Mr. Nixon: He has raised money for all those people, that’s why he was so enthusiastic.

Hon. Mr. Davis: An excellent appointment. Mr. Macaulay will become a member of the board of directors on January 1, 1979, and succeed to the office of chairman on July 1. I do not intend at this time to offer any biographical information in regard to Mr. Macaulay.

Mr. Breithaupt: We know.

Mr. Martel: I hardly think we need it; it’s all marked in dollars and cents.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That will be provided in its usual form with the official releases. Let me state, however, for the benefit of any member of the assembly who might not be aware, that Mr. Macaulay is a long-time friend and adviser of mine.

Mr. Martel: We would never have guessed. What a surprise.

[10:30]

Hon. Mr. Davis: In close to 20 years of association, I have learned, as others have, that he is a man of proven ability and of great intelligence. He is straightforward in his approach to problems and articulate and convincing as a communicator -- I was going to add “as a journalist” but that, I think, is still up for some decision.

Mr. Kerrio: The only question you have is his choice of friends.

Hon. Mr. Davis: At the conclusion of a long and extensive period of consideration as to who an adequate replacement for Robert Taylor might be, I came to the conclusion that these were the very qualities that I felt were required for the demanding assignment of chairman of Ontario Hydro at this point in our history. I am more than pleased, therefore, that Mr. Macaulay has agreed to emerge from what many of us regarded as a far too premature retirement to accept this most important post.

Mr. Ruston: Why would he want to do that?

Mr. J. Reed: He was next in line.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It would be of interest to the members, particularly some of the newer members, that Mr. Macaulay’s father, one Leopold Macaulay, and his brother, Robert Macaulay, have served in this Legislature as members of cabinet of early Ontario governments with great distinction.

Mr. MacDonald: Leopold Macaulay was the last Tory elected in York South.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Macaulay’s outstanding qualities, along with his close association with the political process, uniquely equips him with an appreciation of the relationship between the Legislature and Ontario Hydro.

In his new assignment, therefore, I know he will serve the customers and employees of Hydro with dedication and effectiveness.

VISITOR

Hon. Mr. Davis: While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to introduce to the members of this Legislature a very distinguished gentleman from Sault Ste. Marie who will be seated amongst us some few weeks hence. He is in your gallery, Mr. Speaker: the successful candidate, as of 7 o’clock last evening, Mr. Russell Ramsay.

Mr. Kerrio: We are going to demand a recount.

Mr. Bradley: Did he doublepark his Brink’s truck outside?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Where’s the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman)? I was going to rise on a point of privilege and say he was all wrong.

Mr. Breithaupt: Sounds like Butch Cassidy.

BYPRODUCT POWER FROM NUCLEAR STATIONS

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, in consultation with my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman), I am pleased to announce today the next phase in the important co-operative venture between the public and private sectors aimed at the utilization of thermal power available in the reject warm water at nuclear power stations.

As the next step, we are preparing to proceed to the immediate establishment of two small-scale greenhouse production facilities, one each at the Bruce and Pickering generating stations. At the same time, Hydro will commence the actual engineering design stage of the system needed for the extraction and piping of warm water, the construction of which is tied to the outcome of this next experimental phase.

Members will recall that in May 1977 a steering committee was established to coordinate and plan ways to utilize the reject heat from the Bruce nuclear generating station in greenhouse and fish-farm applications.

A detailed engineering and economic study was undertaken by a private consultant, and the report was released in December 1977. That report concluded that the scheme was technically and economically feasible and recommended that the project be actively promoted.

Mr. Mancini: It’s a waste of money, and the minister knows it.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Earlier this year, the Ontario Energy Corporation began discussions with growers, fish-farm operators, developers and the financial community. The main theme of these discussions was that the project would be undertaken by the private sector and that the small owner-grower must be given every opportunity to become involved.

Mr. Mancini: The minister wouldn’t know a greenhouse if be saw one.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Neither would you, Remo.

Hon. Mr. Auld: This private sector approach and emphasis on the family-size farm were key principles in the government’s effort.

In August, by way of newspaper and magazine advertising, preliminary design proposals were requested from private-sector investors interested in developing the greenhouse and fish-farm facilities at Bruce, Pickering and Darlington.

Mr. Riddell: Of all the alternatives, that has to be the most ill-conceived.

Hon. Mr. Auld: The response to this request for proposals was very encouraging. The 25 proposals received from potential developers, financiers and operators showed that the level of interest is very high.

From these submissions and from ongoing discussions it has become clear that there are three basic and interrelated areas which must be explored in detail, if a commercially sound project is to become a reality.

1. Since the actual extraction of the warm water will need to be capitalized over a long period of time, we need to define more clearly the long-term financial and technological risks involved and how to deal with them.

2. Because long-term contracts are required to finance the extraction and piping costs, we need to explore in depth the specific ways to attract or secure substantial private sector investment capital.

3. Since the volume of produce sold is the key to profitability, we must measure more accurately the potential productivity of greenhouses at these actual locations. Similarly, the fish-produced-for-food business requires high-quality water, the assurance of which, through detailed analysis based on actual growth cycles, is a prerequisite to any fish-farm operation.

Since it is clear that the fastest way to answer the concerns surrounding these questions is to test the productivity of this technology, we are now proceeding to this next stage. I have instructed the Ontario Energy Corporation to continue to work in co-operation with the appropriate ministries and the private sector and to co-ordinate an immediate research, design and development undertaking at the Bruce nuclear power development and at the Pickering generating station.

These projects will be designed, first and foremost, to test the productivity of greenhouses in those locations, including weather effects such as sunlight availabilities, snow loading, wind and inversion factors, soil, water and air quality conditions and other growing parameters. In addition, various crops and growing techniques, such as hydroponics, greenhouse design characteristics and possible engineering improvements will be evaluated.

As I mentioned earlier, we have strong indications that a private sector approach, commercially designed, financed and operated, is feasible and we would like to see this type of involvement in all phases of this undertaking. In particular, those companies or individuals who have already indicated a specific and commercially realistic interest in the project through their submissions would be expected to take on financing and management responsibilities during this research phase.

We feel this productivity test and research phase will answer a lot of the risk-related concerns perceived by the developers, financiers and growers. It will also allow them to participate right from the formative stages of the project.

As has been the case from the beginning, we will continue to work closely with the municipal officials concerned to co-ordinate the development of this unique project. Based on the results to date, I am very encouraged by the potential which exists for a large-scale greenhouse and fish-farm complex at Bruce and for a smaller-scale project at Pickering. Offering Ontario growers this tangible opportunity to benefit from reduced energy costs is one vital part of our government’s efforts to maintain our greenhouse industry and its high-quality produce at a fair price.

But there is additional great importance to this project, which stems from several other sources. Firstly, it is a positive joint venture which can provide the framework for the private sector to harness new technology and to create new business. Secondly, the utilization of thermal power available in hot waters from power stations has great industrial and residential space-heating potential.

Mr. J. Reed: That is the most important thing you have said.

Hon. Mr. Auld: We are confident that this concrete agricultural application will make a positive contribution to our efforts to develop district heating and other community-wide uses.

Finally, this approach opens up new potentials for the expansion of the greenhouse and fish-farm industry, which can only improve the effectiveness of our market development and import replacement efforts in fish, flowers and vegetables.

ONTARIO STATUS OF WOMEN COUNCIL

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Later today I will be tabling the fourth annual report of the Ontario Status of Women Council. I would like to pay tribute to the members and the chairperson, Lynne Gordon, for their efforts on behalf of all of the women in the province of Ontario.

Miss Gordon is in the gallery today, and I take pleasure in introducing her to you, Mr. Speaker.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I believe deeply that every child in Ontario should have the opportunity to excel and to reach his or her full potential. However, this right is not now being enjoyed by all children who have special educational needs because of physical, mental, emotional or learning disabilities. It is my pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to announce today a three-part plan to rectify this situation. The implementation of this plan will require a memorandum to school boards --

Mr. S. Smith: Excellence isn’t part of your school system.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: -- new ministry programs and, finally, legislative change.

Ms. Gigantes: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister has copies available of the statement she’s prepared to read.

Mr. Speaker: I think she said --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: They are available. I don’t have them with me at the moment.

An hon. member: You’re supposed to have them ready at the moment.

Mr. McClellan: How about giving one to the critics?

Mr. S. Smith: I have an extra copy.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Thank you. I know they were delivered to the leaders of the opposition parties but --

Mr. Warner: They’re supposed to go to the critics.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, if I might continue --

Interjections.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: -- during the next few weeks, a memorandum will be issued to all school boards. It will require them to offer an early identification program to ensure that the learning needs of every child entering the schools will be identified. It is essential that physical, mental, emotional or learning disabilities be identified early so that remedial programs may be provided promptly. Boards will begin to implement this program by September 1979 and it should be fully operational by September 1981.

A second memorandum will direct boards to provide educational programs for children with learning disabilities. The memorandum defines disabilities as “disorders in one or more of the basic processes involved in understanding or using symbols or spoken language. These disorders result in a significant discrepancy between academic achievement and assessed intellectual ability.”

In some cases, the boards will be unable to offer programs for learning-disabled children because of the severity of the disabilities suffered by those children. Therefore, the ministry will establish residential schools for severely learning-disabled children in Milton for anglophone children and in Ottawa for francophone children.

Mr. Foulds: When?

Ms. Gigantes: Has that passed by cabinet yet?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: In addition to providing services for learning-disabled children, the schools will provide in-service training for board-employed teachers to equip them to be able to conduct programs for learning-disabled children within their schools. A memorandum will be forwarded to boards advising them of this ministry initiative.

The ministry has undertaken a number of other initiatives to help children with special educational needs and I should like to outline these for the members.

It is anticipated that models for a provincial assessment service for learning-disabled children will be developed at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto and at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario in Ottawa. The ministry will provide boards with curriculum material on learning-disabled children. Further, it is expected that several universities will offer graduate programs to teachers who will work with learning-disabled children.

Another initiative will affect children who are both blind and deaf. The program at the W. Ross Macdonald school in Brantford will be expanded to accommodate an additional 15 children, bringing the number of participants to 48.

During the spring session of the Legislature, I shall introduce amendments to three sections of the Education Act.

Section 147 (140) of the Education Act makes special education programs optional at this time. The act will be amended to set out each school board’s responsibility to ensure that all children within its jurisdiction are provided with appropriate educational services.

Ms. Gigantes: Good.

An hon. member: Long overdue.

Mr. McClellan: About time.

Mr. Cassidy: About time. It’s been a long time.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I will also propose that

section 34 of the act be amended to permit boards to exclude trainable retarded children from secondary schools and schools for the trainable retarded, as well as from elementary schools. But the amendment will require a board to take all reasonable steps to assist the parents or the guardians of that child to obtain non-educational services when a child is excluded.

Mr. Foulds: That’s got to be tougher.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s got to be tougher. You’ve just taken back what you gave.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The final amendments affect the trainable retarded as well. Those children may now be excluded from schools for the trainable retarded, before they enter school, by the admission board for trainable retarded, operating under

section 75 of the act. I shall introduce an amendment which will revoke this discriminatory

section so as to give trainable retarded children the same right of access to schools as other school-aged children. It should be noted that program placement and review committees operating under regulation 704 to the act provide programming, placement and review services to the children who are retarded.

Before I conclude, I would like to express my deep appreciation to the dedicated men and women, both educators and parents --

Ms. Gigantes: Dedicated and patient.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: -- who have worked with the ministry in the development of these initiatives. They have brought to the attention of the ministry the special education needs of physically, mentally, emotionally and learning-disabled children. They have made sure that we did not forget them. These initiatives are their initiatives. If they are to be successful, the active support of teachers, trustees, administrators and, above all, parents will be required.

[10:45]

These policy and legislative changes do not meet all of the needs of every child, but they are a major step towards enabling each child to reach the limits of his or her intellectual capacity.

DILLON REPORT

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I have the pleasure of tabling a report prepared by the consulting firm of M. M. Dillon Limited, following completion of a land-use study of the former Burwash Correctional Centre. The consulting firm was engaged by the ministry in February 1978 to study and propose the most appropriate uses of the former Burwash Correctional Centre.

Extensive research and direct public involvement through public submissions and public meetings resulted in the analysis of over 50 possible uses for this site. The report recommends the use of camps and all the arable land by the federal Ministry of the Solicitor General for an integrated maximum and minimum security institution and farm operation.

This proposed use is considered to be the most appropriate for the following reasons.

Mr. Martel: What use? The federal government just said it wasn’t proceeding.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: It provides for an integrated use of the entire site.

Mr. Martel: Sell it to the feds? What a copout You washed out the fourth largest employer in the Sudbury basin.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: It will effectively utilize the arable land and institutional facilities, including Camp Bison, which the federal government previously purchased from the province for $1.8 million.

Mr. Martel: And they aren’t going to co-operate.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: It will provide jobs for local residents.

Mr. Mattel: For what?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I am pleased to announce that this recommendation has been accepted by the provincial government.

Mr. Martel: No doubt. It gets you off the hook.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: The staff of my ministry are currently trying to negotiate the sale of this site to the federal government.

OHIP SUBROGATION AGREEMENT

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I would like to inform the members of an agreement we have made with Ontario insurance companies for payment in lieu of subrogation.

The Ontario Health Insurance Plan pays the costs of health services required as a result of injuries sustained in automobile accidents. Where those injuries resulted from the negligence or the wrongful act or omission of another person, OHIP is entitled to recover those costs from the person liable or, practically speaking, from that person’s insurance company.

In response to recommendations of the select committee on company law, and thanks largely to an actuarial formula developed by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, an agreement between my ministry and the insurance companies has been developed that will make the recovery of funds direct and the calculations as simple as possible. It is designed to simplify the administration involved by lessening the necessity for exchange of information between OHIP staff and the lawyers and insurance firms. It will also afford much greater protection to the confidentiality of patient records.

The essence of the agreement is that in lieu of OHIP claiming and insurers paying on a case-by-case basis, the insurers will pay monthly instalments to OHIP that each year total approximately two per cent of their annual motor vehicle third-party liability premiums. In 1976, the latest year for which complete figures are available, this would have amounted to just under $11 million, which is about the amount actually recovered for the type of claims covered by this agreement.

The agreement applies to accidents that occur after November 30, 1978. It runs to December 31, 1980, and may be terminated then, or on any December 31 thereafter, by either party on one year’s written notice. It further provides fur payment to the ministry to be made in monthly instalments based on the insurers’ reported gross premiums for the preceding calendar year, with payments to commence March 31, 1979; interest to be paid on late payments; adjustment of payments when the current figures are ascertained; and the right of the Minister of Health to audit the insurers’ gross premiums.

Insurers who are not party to the agreement and self-insurers, like the TTC or the CNR, will continue to be dealt with under the present subrogation procedures. While a separate agreement will be signed with each insurer, the agreements will be identical. I am advised that the companies that have signed the agreement so far represent about 75 per cent of the market.

This agreement will speed recovery of these costs. We expect it will increase revenue to the government by about $12 million over the next four years because the government will still be collecting in respect of accidents occurring prior to November 30, 1978, while instalment payments are being made in respect of accidents after that date.

It is estimated that my ministry will also save approximately $750,000 per year in legal fees. Legal costs for the insurance industry, of course, will also be reduced.

There will still be a small component of the subrogation

section of my ministry looking after malpractice, out-of-province claims, the self-insured, such as the railways and the airlines, as well as any non-signatories of the agreement. However, there will be a substantial reduction of perhaps more than 40 persons in the staff of the subrogation section.

Everything will be done to place these employees elsewhere in the government. Already, 12 people have been placed and their positions filled with temporary help. Other ministries and the Civil Service Commission are assisting us in this endeavour and, since the current files will take about two years to close out, the staff reduction will be a gradual one.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: A point of privilege. The member for Hamilton Centre.

BESTLINE PRODUCTS OF CANADA

Mr. M. N. Davison: I would like to raise a matter of privilege with you, sir, unless the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations is going to be making another statement. I’ve waited patiently to the end of statements and I assume he is not going to be making another one.

The matter of privilege I want to raise with you arises out of certain matters that have taken place in the House in the past two days.

On Wednesday morning during the debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, I put to the minister a series of four questions dealing with a company by the name of Bestline Products of Canada. The minister asked me at the rime if I wanted the answers then, but I said, no, I’d be willing to allow the time between that point in time and the time we would debate the bill to repeal the Pyramidic Sales Act in the assembly. That is clearly shown in Hansard on page 9552 of that morning.

Late yesterday, the bill was brought forward. The minister was not in the Legislature, but I understand he was not aware at the time that the bill was coming forward. The debate followed. I put the same four questions to the parliamentary assistant to which he had no answers except, as I recall, an assumption on one of the four questions.

The House leader of my party rose at the end of the debate and asked the government House leader (Mr. Welch) whether or not it would be possible for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to make a statement this morning in the assembly so we would not delay the bill and proceed with the business of the House. The House leader at that time said, accordingly to page 2125-2 of last night’s Hansard, the following:

Hon. Mr. Drea: Where do you get that from? That’s before the orders of the day. That’s when I was going to do it.

Mr. Deans: The member wants you to answer.

Mr. M. N. Davison: “If I might respond to that, Mr. Speaker, I would think that the member for Hamilton Centre has been very reasonable in his expectations with respect to this matter and certainly, because of the expedition of some earlier business in legislation, this matter has been reached tonight. I don’t even think the minister thought it was going to be reached tonight and, with the help of the parliamentary assistant, we will communicate these concerns and hopefully have a statement from the minister tomorrow with respect to these concerns, if that would be all right.”

Mr. Deans: If the minister has an answer, why won’t he give it?

Mr. M. N. Davison: The minister did arrive in the Legislature later last night and during debate on a different bill, chose to make some response to what had transpired earlier.

I was a little unclear as to what point he was making, but at some point in his comments he did touch on the four questions I had raised and said that --

Mr. Rotenberg: What’s the point of privilege?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand the minister is prepared to do the very thing you request right now. We will consider it to be a ministerial statement.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Because of the number of statements today and in order that there could be a full question period, I was prepared to do it and I still am, just before orders of the day are called.

Mr. Speaker: I would prefer you do it by way of a ministerial statement.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, the statement is out there.

Mr. Speaker: So the minister is not prepared to do it at this time?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I am not prepared to do it at this time, but I will do it as soon as possible.

Mr. Deans: There is no provision before orders of the day.

Mr. Rotenberg: The minister is going to answer the question.

TRIBUTES TO MEMBER FOR WENTWORTH

Mr. Cassidy: I want to say a few words about my friend and colleague, the member for Wentworth (Mr. Deans). This may be his last day in the Legislature. I don’t want to let the moment pass without acknowledging the contribution which he has made to his party, to his constituents, to this Legislature and to the province over the 11 years since he was first elected back in 1967.

I recall, in looking at the figures that the member for Wentworth was first elected with a couple of thousand votes majority. By the time he ran in 1977 his majority was something equal to the number of votes I get in total in my riding up in Ottawa.

He has been an outstanding spokesman for the party in the Hamilton area and across the province. As a working man himself, he has spoken on behalf of working people across the province. With his Scottish eloquence, he has brought to this Legislature again and again an understanding of the concerns and the needs of the ordinary people of Ontario.

I want to mention two or three specific contributions that the member for Wentworth has made of whith I am particularly aware. One is the help he gave to a number of us who were part of the class of 1971 when we came in here as greenhorns. He took us under his arm and helped show us the ropes. Another is the very excellent work which the member for Wentworth and the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Mattel), as members of the select committee on economic and cultural nationalism contributed to this Legislature over the period of 1972 and 1973.

The reports of that committee, which have not yet been read, to my knowledge, by most members of the government, would, had they been implemented, have made this province a heck of a different place and a much better place for every Canadian and every Ontarian.

Mr. Martel: Right on, even though it was a cop-out in the cabinet.

Mr. Riddell: Even dealt with foreign ownership of land. They completely ignored it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, they didn’t.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right. I would like to pay tribute to the member for Wentworth’s contribution to this House For seven years as House leader and in particular over the very difficult and exciting years from 1975 to 1977 when he was House leader and our party was the official opposition in the House. It is hard to imagine him putting out fires rather than lighting political fires but I just want to say that I regret his intention to resign.

On behalf of my party and of this House, I want to wish him well in his new career and express deep thanks from us all for the contribution that he has made.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I understood that the very distinguished member for Wentworth was going to wind up the budget debate today. So I was really reserving the government’s observations until the conclusion of his remarks to see whether I felt the same way after he finished as I do at this precise moment.

Mr. Foulds: So he can’t reply.

Hon. Mr. Davis: However, knowing that the member will, of necessity, have one or two constructively critical observations to make about the government later on today that, on balance, will be totally supportive of the very excellent programs and policies that this government administers; knowing that will be the main thrust of his observations, I would like to say, in a very personal way for my colleagues on this side of the House, and as a member, not as Premier or anything else, that I have enjoyed the contribution of the member for Wentworth.

I must confess that we didn’t always see eye to eye on some of the issues. But his contributions were constructive. They were ones that he believed in very sincerely; I can think of one or two exceptions but they are totally irrelevant on this occasion.

I, too, would like to wish him well in whatever career he decides to pursue. I see from the press that initially he is going to go back to his former profession. I question, Mr. Speaker, whether he will, in fact, stay there in perpetuity. In fact, I would be very surprised not to see the member emerge once again in some form of public service. I will say no more at this precise moment. But I would like to express, in a very sincere way, our very best wishes to the member for Wentworth. I am sure that nothing he says later today will revise those very good wishes. But our best to him.

[11:00]

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to add some comments on behalf of members of my party, and also on my own behalf, regarding the contribution to this House and to this province that has been made by my friend -- and I can use the term, I feel, in a somewhat personal way as well as a political way -- my friend the member for Wentworth.

The member and I have got to know each other a bit this last couple of years and I can tell you I have the utmost admiration for his integrity, his dedication to the people of Hamilton and to the people of Ontario. I think you should know that he has set a standard, Mr. Speaker, for service to his constituency and to his area, apart from the work he has done in this House, his party work and his work in the province. He has set a standard for constituency work which I believe is second to none.

He has a well-deserved reputation in Hamilton, among people of every political persuasion, as a person with tremendous tenacity, with great feeling and compassion for ordinary citizens, and a willingness to go to work and to work very hard on behalf of those who require help.

I have had the pleasure also of playing tennis with him, Mr. Speaker, and it is interesting the way in which he has picked up that game. He covers the entire lefthand side of the court and leaves me the righthand side, which I am sure makes certain of his colleagues very happy.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Some of us cover the whole court.

Mr. S. Smith: But as a team, I tell you, Mr. Speaker, we have done very well.

Mr. Breithaupt: Some of you play both sides of the net.

Mr. S. Smith: We have done very well as a team indeed. We have an undefeated record. I want simply to say that I believe the member for Wentworth to be a very fine human being, to be a very fine Ontarian and we look forward to any possible way in which he can serve the public of Ontario. He will, in fact, be serving the public in the profession to which he is returning in a very real, tangible and important way. I trust there will be other ways as well in which we will have the benefit of his services. We all wish him well and I say that from the bottom of my heart.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I also wanted to make a few comments this morning. The member for Wentworth and I were both elected in 1967, and during the years in the early ’70s, we both had the opportunity of serving our respective parties as House leaders. I always found in working with the member for Wentworth that he was demanding, that he was certain in his position and his point of view. He made no bones about the clarity in which he held those views. But in addition, I found him to be exceptionally hard working, to be fair, and to be a thorough representative of the people of Went- worth.

I had a very good opportunity in working with him in the tasks which we had to perform on a daily basis with the government House leader. When our roles were reversed as a result of the election to which the leader of the New Democratic Party has referred, the relationship continued to be a strong one, one I certainly enjoyed very much, one from which I learned, and one I will certainly miss.

I indeed wish him well as he goes on to the next stage of his public service.

BESTLINE PRODUCTS OF CANADA

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, the questions in the order they were raised by the member for Hamilton Centre during the estimates were: how did the Bestline company come to be registered under the Pyramidic Sales Act, as the successor of a company called Golden Canada Products Limited; why did they fail to file a company report in 1974, 1975 and 1976, and, third, a question on something that purports to be the destruction of certain records on file with the ministry.

Mr. Laughren: Why can’t we ever get a copy from that side?

Mr. Martel: It’s still in the back.

Hon. Mr. Drea: There was a fourth question raised last night which I will --

Mr. Speaker: The question arises if you are going to make it by way of a ministerial statement, have you provided copies to the other two parties?

Mr. Nixon: Back to square one.

Hon. Mr. Drea: No, Mr. Speaker, I haven’t because I was prepared to answer the questions that arose out of my estimates just before the orders of the day.

Mr. Martel: What kind of convoluted answer is that?

Mr. Rotenberg: He wants to answer the questions.

Hon. Mr. Drea: In answer to question number one as to how Bestline was registered, it was registered in October 1974. Staff of the ministry at that time, who are no longer with the ministry, recall that the absolute proof as to why that company should not have been registered under the Pyramidic Sales Act lay only in police files in far-away jurisdictions.

With respect to number two, I presume that what the honourable member is referring to is that the annual company report was not filed in the companies branch during those three years. Under the rules of the companies branch, you can be up to three years in arrears with your annual report. I would like to point out that they did file under the Pyramidic Sales Act exactly as required.

Concerning the accident and destruction of the Bestline records, there was no accident and there was no destruction. We have many, many thousands of documents from that company which we have seized in raids. They are not even contained in the ministry building; they are contained in an absolutely safe place.

Last night, the question was raised as to whether there was any connection between Bestline and the minister, people in the ministry or anybody else.

Mr. M. N. Davison: The fourth question was about Golden Canada Products Limited.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Last night my parliamentary assistant asked the honourable member if he was suggesting any improper conduct on behalf of the present minister or past minister. Mr. Speaker, I will tell you there is not now, nor has there ever been, any connection between myself, my predecessors in the ministry or indeed the entire civil service in the ministry and Bestline Products.

Mr. Turner: Cheap shot.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The minister has lost one of the questions and substituted one of his own.

Hon. Mr. Drea: No, I’m reading out of Hansard.

Mr. M. N. Davison: The fourth question originally was why on earth the ministry registered them, considering the record of their previous company, Golden Canada Products Limited.

Mr. Martel: The avenger. The enforcer.

Mr. M. N Davison: The fourth question had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the minister is an improper fellow.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I do believe I answered that particular question as number one.

Mr. Laughren: The Peter Falk of the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions. The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Martel: And they wanted to be out of here by 12 o’clock.

ORAL QUESTIONS

JURISDICTION OF OMBUDSMAN

Mr. S. Smith: I’d like to direct a question to the Attorney General. Can the Attorney General explain to this House why it is that his department felt compelled to test the power of the Ombudsman in court regarding the Ombudsman’s ability to investigate certain of the boards and agencies that exist in the province of Ontario? Fortunately, the Attorney General has kept up his excellent court record and has lost the case, but I would ask why the Attorney General felt it necessary to launch this particular case.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: We have not lost it. The Leader of the Opposition should get his facts straight. One can appreciate he’d be a little upset at what happened last night. It was pretty humiliating for him last night; pretty humiliating.

Mr. Bradley: Are you going to hide behind that every time?

Mr. S. Smith: Was it in fact a question, as suggested by a lawyer in the Ombudsman’s office, that the government was trying to emasculate the position of the Ombudsman?

Mr. Nixon: And you know how upsetting violation can be.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: You almost emasculated yourself in Sault Ste. Marie.

Mr. Peterson: It’s always pleasant when you show up every six weeks.

Mr. Bradley: Hide behind your arrogance.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: You’re smarting a little bit today. I understand.

Mr. T. P. Reid: You having been through it, you should know it.

An hon. member: Yes. You know what it’s like to lose by-elections.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Order.

Mr. S. Smith: Can the Attorney General explain why lawyers for his department advanced an argument in the case of the Ombudsman with regard to the Health Disciplines Board which basically would have the effect of emasculating the ability of the Ombudsman to look at various boards and agencies in this province? Why did he intervene like that? What was his purpose in doing so?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Well, of course, Mr. Speaker, I can understand that the Leader of the Opposition would have some difficulty understanding this matter because he does have so much difficulty understanding most matters that come before this House.

Mr. Peterson: Because he is not a QC.

Mr. Riddell: Just answer the question.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I can’t really explain why he is so confused.

The matter of the Health Disciplines Board was an important legal issue. The Health Disciplines Board was represented by its own counsel. There is an important issue as to whether or not a board which is made up of non-government people, non-civil servants -- members, for the most part, as I understand it, from the private sector -- should be considered as a government board within the purview of the Ombudsman Act.

The counsel for the Attorney General’s ministry participated and did not launch the application. I think the Leader of the Opposition knows that. I think it unfortunate that he would misstate what in fact occurred.

The truth of the matter is, the Ministry of the Attorney General has been and will continue to be very supportive of the Ombudsman’s office.

Mr. Lawlor: Nonsense.

Mr. McClellan: That’s a lot of rubbish.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: There was an important issue before the courts as to whether or not a board made up in this way should be considered a government board within the meaning of the Ombudsman Act. The reason being that we are dealing with boards that are quasi-judicial in nature. The basic purpose of the Ombudsman, of course, his principal purpose, is to review decisions that are made by employees of the government. The principal role of the Ombudsman, as we perceive it, is not to intervene between issues between private citizens.

In this particular case, the Health Disciplines Board was dealing with an issue between two private citizens, a doctor on the one hand and a patient on the other hand. It seemed to me appropriate for the Ministry of the Attorney General to assist the court in determining whether or not this was a proper function of the Ombudsman’s office.

Mr. S. Smith: The minister now says that really his intervention in this case was just to be sure that this Health Disciplines Board was really a function of government and because it was not a governmental function, it shouldn’t come under the Ombudsman.

May I read to the Attorney General from the presentation presented by the attorney for his ministry, who says: “It is submitted, therefore, that if the Health Disciplines Board is a governmental organization as defined in

section 1(a), the Ombudsman is precluded from investigation of the actual review and decision of the board and the complaints committee.” So, either way, they want it excluded.

May I ask him particularly whether or not he is aware that the following bodies have resisted investigation by the Ombudsman: The Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers’ Marketing Board; the Farm Products Marketing Board; the Milk Commission of Ontario; the Hospital Appeal Board; the Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal; the Residential Premises Rent Review Board; and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

Is the minister prepared to do what one of his predecessors, Mr. Clement, promised originally? That is, tell us which of the boards he feels should not be under the purview of the Ombudsman and produce a list. Because, as the judge said, if, in fact, any of these boards were to be excluded, it should have said so in the act originally.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think, Mr. Speaker, there is probably good reason for the Legislature to want to clarify the act in this respect. I want to repeat what I said before, because I think it is important that members appreciate the fundamental issue. That is: should the role of the Ombudsman be to intervene in matters that are basically between private citizens in this province? Or is the role of the Ombudsman to intervene in relation to the individual versus the government? This latter function is what we consider to be the appropriate function.

But there seems to be some genuine confusion in this area and I think the act might very well be clarified in this respect.

Mr. Lawlor: I would have thought that the Attorney General would have had the decency to intervene the other way, supporting and affirming the role of the Ombudsman.

Does the Attorney General intend, therefore, to amend that statute in line with the numerous reports of the select committee of this House? Say, put a

schedule into that act defining who falls within his jurisdiction?

[11:15]

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Again at the risk of repeating something I have already said, I, personally, have great concern in encouraging the Ombudsman’s office to act or to involve itself in a dispute which is essentially between two private citizens. I would not support any amendment that would, in effect, confirm that role because I personally don’t believe that that is the proper role of the Ombudsman’s office.

Mr. Lawlor: Why on earth would you go with that Health Disciplines Board? That is the most --

Mr. Roy: Supplementary: Following on the question of my leader and my colleague, the member for Lakeshore, about the Ombudsman, is the Attorney General not concerned that when he intervenes in situations of this kind there’s a perception out there that the Attorney General, as chief law officer for the crown, is in some way trying to limit the scope and jurisdiction of the Ombudsman? Secondly, would he not agree that once a matter goes before one of these boards, like the Health Disciplines Board, it is something that is a bit different from a dispute just between two individuals?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think I have made as clear as I can my area of concern in the matter and why the Ministry of the Attorney General participated in this matter before the courts.

Mrs. Campbell: Supplementary: Does the Attorney General not concede that the matter of the Ombudsman’s role is a matter for this Legislature and not for any minister per se and that we must look at least at the reports of the Ombudsman committee as they request amendment?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I just don’t understand that question.

Mr. T. P. Reid: You should resign then if you don’t know any better than that. You are not running the Ombudsman. He is appointed by the Legislature and responsible to us.

Mr. S. Smith: Read John Clement’s comments on that.

Interjections.

PAPER MILL CONTROL ORDERS

Mr. S. Smith: Could I ask a question of the Minister of the Environment? Can the minister explain, in addition to the various matters he discussed with regard to control orders on the pulp and paper industry yesterday, why it is that an extension has been given to the E. B. Eddy company mill on the Ottawa River, permitting them now until December 15, 1980, to continue to dump untreated sanitary waste into the Ottawa River? In answering the question, would the minister be sure to point out and understand that this has nothing to do with the actual making of pulp and paper?

This is a simple matter of the discharge from toilets on the place which, instead of being collected in proper tanks as is done in Europe, is going right into the river untreated.

How can the minister continue to give that kind of an extension? Is he going to base that on the lack of elaborate Canadian technology?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I didn’t quite hear the first part of the question. Is the Leader of the Opposition referring to E. B. Eddy on the Ontario side?

Mr. S. Smith: Yes, the E. B. Eddy company.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: On which side?

Mr. S. Smith: The Ontario side, of course. Do you usually give orders on the Quebec side?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think the member knows how bad it is on the other side of that same river. Indeed the whole city or the whole town of Hull has no facility whatsoever. It has been on the drawing board for three years, so we worry about Ontario and rightly so.

I don’t think I gave that extension yesterday. That extension was given, but I think one must put in perspective what has happened on the other side of the river. It’s a pretty significant thing.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, do I take it that the reason for the extension of this control order from December 15, 1979, to December 15, 1980, to eliminate the discharge of untreated sanitary waste is simply because the minister doesn’t like the policy of the province of Quebec?

Hon. Mr. Davis: He didn’t say that.

Mr. S. Smith: Then what is the reason for this extension? Surely there is no lack of Canadian technology capable of collecting the sanitary waste and pumping out the tanks afterwards? Why do we continue to put that effluent right into the river? This has nothing to do with advanced technology of pulp-and-paper-making; this is a simple matter of sanitary waste. Surely, people can comply with that order?

Mr. McClellan: Speech.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: It is kind of interesting that the Leader of the Opposition gets so exercised on that particular order. It will be done.

Mr. S. Smith: The minister extended it for a year.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Yes, indeed, that was so. But, I again say to the member that it is kind of interesting that he can be so critical of one company on one side of the river when the total community -- not a company, but the total community -- has absolutely --

Mr. Villeneuve: The whole city.

Mr. Nixon: What can we do about it?

Mr. S. Smith: What’s that got to do with it?

Mr. Pope: If you knew where you were going you would know.

Mr. Villeneuve: Ask Trudeau why he built the swimming pool.

Mr. Pope: Find out what you are talking about before you ask questions.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: The member knows the facts. He doesn’t see the reason why it’s done. He will never put in perspective any of the other things that happen here in this province and in this country. He never does that. It is a serious mistake on his part.

Mr. Cassidy: Since the minister was trying to tell the House yesterday that his easing-up on control orders didn’t really affect the pulp and paper industry, can he explain why it is that he has decided to defer this control order on the E. B. Eddy company? And, now that the matter has been raised in the Legislature, will the government ensure that the sanitary waste from several hundred employees in that plant is not dumped into the Ottawa River? That, in fact, it is captured in a holding tank and put into proper sanitary sewage disposal facilities?

Mr. S. Smith: As they do in Europe -- every European plant.

Mr. Mancini: Yes or no?

Mr. Riddell: He will when he learns how to clean the tank.

Mr. S. Smith: A cottage-owner can’t even do that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cassidy: You couldn’t sail a boat down the river with what E. B. Eddy is doing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The question has been asked. Will you please allow the minister to answer?

Mr. Swart: Answer yes or no.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: It is kind of interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, how well those deadlines were met yesterday and yet so little attention is paid to such a large number of orders that are met. I just can’t get over that aspect of it. You see, 10 out of the 11 met --

Mr. Foulds: Nine.

Mr. MacDonald: And how often have they been extended?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think, with respect, in six weeks they will be, for all intents and purposes, meeting that order. If the member opposite is going to make a big deal out of six weeks, so be it. I will correct my statement and say nine.

I repeat and repeat and repeat how often this province is ahead of other provinces and other countries. I can’t in one fell swoop, nor can any company, do all of the things that will and should be done. It will take time. But every time the members ask why I think there is a good reason, I repeat: in many instances it takes time. Other facilities have to be put in place and co-ordinated. There are many reasons why. But I come back to one salient point. Let them make some comparisons and the members will see how well Ontario is doing.

Mr. S. Smith: There was a time when Ontario led.

Hon. Mr. Davis: And it still does.

Mr. Yakabuski: Supplementary: Can the minister tell us when the real problem, the overall problem of over 100,000 inhabitants across the river dumping all that effluent into the Ottawa River, is going to stop?

Interjections.

Mr. Yakabuski: And what kind of information has he had from the province of Quebec and Ottawa with regard to the real problem?

Mr. Cassidy: Let’s talk about our record in Ontario.

Mr. Laughren: Let’s worry about Ontario’s problems.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I had a visit with the minister from Quebec. Certainly, although they have fine words about what will happen, they haven’t been very active in the past. I only hope for the good of that river that not only in one city but in all of the communities along it real action will be taken.

When they get about 10 per cent as well- advanced as Ontario, it will be a big step forward for them.

Mr. Cassidy: Oh, for goodness’ sake. They are building the facilities now.

Mr. Kerrio: If the minister is going outside Ontario, would he check New York state which is dumping 40 million gallons in the Niagara River?

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What is your point of order?

The member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: The supplementaries have been by the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party. Surely the rotation should now be this way.

An hon. member: There’s nothing out of order. Sit down and pay attention.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order Just to clarify that point of order, I believe there was a supplementary from the member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Roy: That’s right. You’re wrong again.

Mr. Nixon: He sits near you.

Mr. Peterson: Apologize again.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: In reply to that question from the member for Niagara Falls, I would strongly recommend to him that he take the latest report of the International Joint Commission on Great Lakes water quality and he will be absolutely delighted and surprised --

Mr. Laughren: No, we will not.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Indeed he will, if he makes comparisons with any of the states.

Mr. Laughren: We have seen that report. It says you are failing in municipality after municipality.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I don’t care whether it’s New York, Michigan, or wherever. On municipal treatment of sewage, Ontario is by far in the lead.

Mr. Laughren: You aren’t leading at all. You are wrong again, Harry.

Ms. Bryden: Supplementary: Since the minister has indicated that he is very concerned about controlling the sewage treatment from pulp and paper plants, he has not yet answered my question earlier this week as to whether the Abitibi Paper Company at Smooth Rock Falls has complied with the order which --

An hon. member: That has nothing to do with this question.

Ms. Bryden: -- had a deadline of October 31 for completion of construction of domestic sewage treatment facilities.

Mr. Havrot: Too bad you weren’t here yesterday. He answered that question yesterday.

Mr. Pope: Could we refer you to the Instant Hansard?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I don’t think it’s a supplementary, but I promised that we would send that information to the honourable member and shall.

Mr. Roy: I think she knows that.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: While I’m on my feet, there’s a question from the leader of the Liberal Party --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Yes, sorry, I didn’t make the full title, Mr. Premier.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Just trying to help you.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I do not have that answer yet, but I make this point to the leader: a question asked in the House has taken central office now 25 man-days to get the answer. I’m not complaining about that much time and effort, but a very considerable amount of time has been put into it. I will not have that information until some time next week.

I make the point that we will get it to the member. I also make the point that some of those questions require a great deal of detail. We’re prepared to do it, but I hope the House appreciates the fantastic effort that is required of staff to do so.

Mr. Philip: Do it for a Christmas present.

Mr. Riddell: That’s what you’ve got a staff for.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Certainly, I’m not denying it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The first question, the minister for Ottawa Centre.

Hon. Mr. Davis: When did he get promoted?

Mr. Cassidy: The minister for Ottawa Centre? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have aspirations even higher than that.

Mr. S. Smith: On a point of order, the minister has just given what sounded to me like the answer to a question previously asked, and he practically scolded me for asking a question that took him 25 days. I would like to ask a brief supplementary if I might, but perhaps later on if you prefer. It seems to me that that’s what he did.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It’s taken quite some time for the first two questions, so I’ll ask for the first question from the member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Roy: No, the minister sort of made a statement that we should stay away from complicated questions.

Mr. S. Smith: The waybills from Interflow; that’s all we asked for.

MICROWAVE RADIATION

Mr. Cassidy: A question of the Minister of Health: In view of the rising concern about the possible short- and long-term effects on the public’s health of radiation from microwave ovens, and in view of the fact that health hazards associated with microwave radiation include cataracts, unexplained sicknesses, headaches, insomnia, emotional and behavioural changes, cardiovascular ailments and leukemia --

Hon. W. Newman: Now we know what’s wrong with you.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: He’s been living in front of his microwave oven.

Mr. Roy: That sounds like a description of the Conservative Party.

Mr. Cunningham: Now all we need is one large microwave.

Mr. Cassidy: -- can the minister explain why the government has not yet seen fit to proclaim the 1975 amendments to the public Health Act in order to enable Ontario to regulate microwave radiation and leakage from microwave ovens?

Mr. Yakabuski: Have you got one at home?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That basically is a matter of responsibility of the Ministry of the Environment now, but as I understand it, the problem at the time was apparently one of concern over whether or not the ministry had the authority to do that. It was apparently, so I was advised yesterday, left on that basis. The matter is now apparently something that falls under the Ministry of the Environment.

Mr. Cassidy: I would like the Minister of the Environment to take the question, if we could transfer it to him.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I’ll get back to the member with an answer on that, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, if I could interject, the problem is as the Minister of Health outlined, and it’s my ministry that has responsibility with regard to that issue. The recommendations are prepared, and as soon as Bill 70 becomes law the regulations will come under that bill with regard to microwaves.

[11:30]

Mr. Cassidy: A question of the Minister of Labour:

Can the minister explain why there is no regulation at all for microwave ovens, apart from the standard which applies when they are sold; and is he aware of the fact that health effects have been felt at radiation levels which are only one tenth of the one federal government? What standard will be applied in Ontario and how soon can we get action on this to protect people who work with commercial microwaves as well as to protect against radiation leakages from domestic microwave ovens?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Little did I know what I was getting into when I chose to rise and respond.

However, I can assure the member that what the Minister of Health said was quite accurate. The problem at the time that particular division was in his ministry was what legislation it would come under. It’s now clear from our review of it that it will have to come under legislation such as Bill 70.

Members of our ministry staff who came over to us from Health have had a research interest in microwave problems and that interest has now been converted into recommendations.

I can’t tell the member when these will become regulations. But certainly it’s apparent to him that we are interested in the problem and propose to deal with it.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: In view of the fact that Bill 70 will only apply to ovens used in commercial applications, what does the government intend to do about the health risks from leakage by microwave ovens used in homes?

Ms. Gigantes: Nothing.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I’m sure the member realizes Bill 70 does deal with occupational health and safety and therefore that’s the only aspect that comes under my ministry.

Mr. Breithaupt: That, indeed, is the point, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister now prepared to take on the responsibility that involves the Ministries of Consumer and Commercial Relations, Health, and Environment in certain aspects of concern, and can we have a statement as to which minister will be responsible for this ongoing problem, in manufacture and the problems with respect to the people making these items and also from the consumer side of it? Is one ministry going to be responsible generally for the supervision of this new problem?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: It’s my understanding that the health protection branch of the federal government is the division responsible for microwave ovens used by the public in general.

OTTAWA PSYCHIATRIC FACILITIES

Mr. Cassidy: I have another question for the Minister of Health which I hope I can get him to answer this time.

Considering there is no secure psychiatric facility to provide for juvenile offenders in the Ottawa area, and given that the funding the Ministry of Health has offered to the Royal Ottawa Hospital will only provide for a 10- to 15-bed secure forensic unit for adult offenders, can the minister explain why the ministry is not acting to establish such a secure facility for disturbed adolescents in the Ottawa area?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I would want to check the details of the proposal at the Royal Ottawa Hospital. I’m not sure that it won’t deal with juvenile offenders as well. I’m not certain of that.

I would want to take some time to look at the situation. I have not been aware previously that there is a particular problem in that regard in looking after juvenile offenders.

Mr. Cassidy: Is the minister aware that on November 9 of this year a meeting was convened of the heads of psychiatry and all people concerned with forensic services in the Ottawa area, that this meeting included people from every health facility and every ministry in the government except the four persons invited from the Ministry of Health who were not present?

And is the minister aware that committee expressed grave concern about the lack of a secure forensic facility for disturbed adolescents and called for urgent action on this priority? Will the minister respond to that and say when the government is prepared to act in order to ensure that disturbed adolescents can be looked after securely in the Ottawa area?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I’ll look at the means of providing that service now. I was not aware of the November 9 meeting. I’ll check to see who was invited and when they were invited and whether, in fact, they were able to attend if they had sufficient notice and generally investigate the whole situation and get back to the member.

Mr. Roy: A supplementary: May I ask the minister, in view of his answer that he was not aware of the problem in the Ottawa area, would he consult with some of his predecessors, for example the one just in front of him, who will advise him that there is a problem in the Ottawa area?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I just heard of the problem in the Ottawa area.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, the member does represent the Ottawa area.

Mr. Roy: Secondly, is he aware that the problem --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Only in Ottawa Centre. Maybe even a psychiatric problem.

Mr. Roy: Yes, there may be a problem in Ottawa East, but there is nothing you people can do about it.

Interjections.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Now back to the question.

Mr. Roy: Continuing my question, seeing that the minister isn’t aware of the meeting of November 9, is he aware that the problem is not limited to the Ottawa area but includes the riding of Prescott-Russell? And thirdly, is he aware that the facilities, if he does decide to establish these facilities, must provide services in French, since there happen to be certain francophones there and services in that language which may be important are lacking in the Ottawa area?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions going on for some time with the Royal Ottawa Hospital on the question of psychiatric services and development of a secure unit, which have been accelerated, of course, by a fire in that unit around about that time, I think it was early in November.

Mr. Roy: It was before.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I’ve had a number of discussions with a number of different people about that. My point is that services for the young psychiatric cases have not been highlighted. I will check on the latest state of the discussions about the unit at the Royal Ottawa and look at this particular aspect of it.

The member will get an answer from me in due course.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the report by Dr. Roberts who was the chairman of the forensic services committee to which I just referred --

Hon. Mr. Davis: There are a lot of supplementaries this morning.

Mr. Cassidy: -- where he said, “It is regrettable that no reaction will be taken before a tragedy causes a public scandal,” will the minister --

Interjections.

Ms. Gigantes: That’s what he says.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s what it said. Will the minister avoid this and undertake to act on the recommendation of the forensic services committee that the ministry and health services in the area convene now and make sure that this secure forensic facility for adolescents be provided immediately, rather than delaying it again and again?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I’ve already indicated that we’ve been working on this for some time. We’ve indicated to the Royal Ottawa that certain moneys are available to proceed. Unfortunately, in the past --

Mr. Cassidy: They should have what is needed.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- it seems that the ambitions of certain professionals have exceeded what our professional people think is required.

We’re trying to achieve a meeting of the minds on the question of psychiatric services and get on with the job.

Ms. Roy: Was that for Ottawa or eastern Ontario? They’re not exactly spoiled down there.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: A new question, the member for Ottawa East.

QUEBEC POLICY ON CONSTRUCTION HIRING

Mr. Roy: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour. Following the federal-provincial conference where the honourable Premier, along with the Premier of Quebec, suggested that one last effort would be made to solve the Quebec construction problem, would the --

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member is not changing his mind too, is he?

Mr. Roy: No, I never have. If the Premier is going to be cynical, address it that way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Has the member completed his question?

Mr. Roy: What date has he set for meeting his counterpart, the Honourable Mr. Johnson, in Quebec? Where is the meeting going to take place? What does he have in mind? Does he agree with his Quebec counterpart, who was quoted on the French television last week to the effect that he was in favour of neutral zones for certain areas of Ontario? Is he in agreement with that statement?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That was eight months ago.

Mr. Roy: Bette, don’t get involved, because you were confused last time.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The member was confused. He didn’t know what they were talking about, as usual.

Interjections.

Mr. Roy: I would like to ask the minister if he might be of assistance to us. Is he in favour of those zones? Apparently, the Quebec minister is in favour. Would they please get together and establish these?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I am delighted to hear that the Minister of Labour for Quebec is in favour of free zones. But I would tell the member that the minister’s concept of a free zone isn’t the member’s concept of a free zone, nor is it mine.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: But he may have changed his mind. In any event, I would advise the member that we do plan on meeting with the Minister of Labour early in the month of January. I would prefer not to discuss the time and place, et cetera, at this time.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. If I may ask the minister: talking about a free zone, I have lived in one for a while and I know what it’s about. This minister is not very popular down there but it doesn’t matter. We still like him.

Mr. Speaker: That’s not a question.

Mr. Pope: Who was unpopular last night?

Mr. Roy: I agree with you. It’s not a question. In view of the excellent precedent that has been established by the minister’s colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea), would he take him along to help him in negotiating and resolving this construction dispute? Then possibly we can avoid getting involved in retaliatory legislation or otherwise.

Mr. Pope: You only polled 15 per cent.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I think it is very important that the member suggests that I take the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations with me. I understand that he certainly had a good time with them last night.

Mr. Makarchuk: If you can’t, Frank can.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: However, I don’t want to suggest that sort of relationship would take place, should I take him with me. However, I would like to indicate my willingness to meet with the Minister of Labour of Quebec. We plan on doing so early in the month of January.

Mr. Peterson: Make sure you have a strong leash.

GATT NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. Laughren: I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Tourism, following his fog-bound statement on the GATT negotiations yesterday. In view of the fact that free trade holds such real dangers for the Ontario economy, is the minister aware of the dramatic and distressingly increasing share of our domestic market which imports are taking in the following areas -- this is just in the last 10 years: for machinery, from 63 per cent to 71 per cent; electrical products, 19 to 20 per cent; consumer electronics, 25 to 63 per cent; computers and office equipment, 60 to 90 per cent; all high technology goods, 35 to 50 per cent; and, for all manufactured goods, from 21 to 30 per cent.

If the minister is aware of that, why is he just telling us now about adjustment policies for those various sectors, particularly in view of the fact that those are crucial sectors? They are going to determine to a large extent the health of the Ontario economy in the future, both in terms of jobs and in the creation of new wealth.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I must say we are not just saying that now. I believe everything we said yesterday in terms of GATT, and during our estimates this week, is quite consistent with the adjustment paper which the member had “brown-bagged” to him a few weeks ago and which in fact was the position of this ministry I suppose quite a few months ago. This is a position that dates back quite some time in this ministry -- that is, an awareness of those problems.

Mr. Laughren: What are the specifics?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: To address now the specifics of your earlier question with regard to what we are doing about the problem, I know you will be aware of the portions of the Shop Canadian program which relate specifically to what we can do in the short term to replace imports.

Mr. Laughren: Like General Electric in Barrie.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We think the greater strides we make now -- and there are some strides being made now in terms of that import replacement -- then the better position we will be in to respond to the GATT changes when they do occur.

Mr. Laughren: Or Hydro.

Hon. W. Newman: Why doesn’t the member start drinking Ontario wine?

Mr. Laughren: Is the minister aware as well of the dramatic decline in manufacturing jobs in the two major industrial centres in Ontario, namely Hamilton and Toronto? What has happened there between June 1973 and June 1978, in just a five-year period, is that in Hamilton, all manufacturing jobs have declined from 69,100 to 65,500; machinery jobs, from 4,700 to 2,400; jobs in electrical products from 7,200 to 4,200. In Toronto jobs in the whole manufacturing sector have declined from 299,200 to 296,800; metal fabrication jobs, from 31,600 to 30,700; machinery jobs, from 17,800 to 14,400; and electrical products jobs, from 33,900 to 31,800.

[11:45]

In view of that rather dramatic decline in jobs in our two major industrial centres in the province in just five years, and in view of the fact as well that the ministry’s own paper in its submission to the federal government concerning the GATT negotiators earlier said the following: “The federal government has predicated its” --

Mr. Speaker: This is becoming a speech.

Mr. Laughren: I will be specific in my question then. Has the minister done any predictions on jobs in those very critical industries for the next five or 10 years?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Obviously, I don’t have any predictions with regard to those jobs in the next five or 10 years with me this morning. We certainly have some projections within the ministry as to what we expect to happen in those sectors. As I indicated in estimates the other night, we have something over 100 various task forces and subtask forces going on to try to determine what the future holds for each of those industries in sectorial situations in this province.

Mr. Laughren: That is your job creation program.

Mr. Warner: That’s the only place where there will be jobs.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I might say we are the only province that has responded in such an aggressive fashion to get ahead of the game and try to indicate what is going to happen in that period. Second, obviously our final determinations on our ultimate predictions must await the next three or four months, when we will see what tariff and non-tariff changes will occur.

I have to repeat to the member that we are well aware of this situation. He referred the other night, for example, to the speech I made in Oakville, which is near Hamilton, one of the communities he was specifically referring to. I spent quite a lengthy bit of that speech referring specifically to the manufacturing opportunities and what this government was prepared to do in order to assist the manufacturing industry both in Hamilton and Toronto. I hope he will be supportive of the steps we plan to take over the next few years.

UNION HIRING PRACTICES

Mr. Yakabuski: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Is the Minister of Labour aware of the concern of union members in the Ottawa Valley and eastern Ontario with regard to union hiring and laying-off practices in the Ottawa area? Is he also aware that many of the union members fear reprisals or blackballing if they complain to the Ontario Labour Relations Board?

Ms. Gigantes: What are you talking about?

Mr. Samis: Is this a question or what?

Mr. Foulds: Be specific.

Mr. Yakabuski: Is the minister prepared to send his labour relations people to Ottawa to advertise the fact that they are there, whereby these union members can call on his people --

Mr. McClellan: Name the unions.

Mr. Yakabuski: -- and lodge complaints where they will not fear that reprisals or any other action will be taken?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: If the member will give me the details of the matters outlined, I will be pleased to review them and deal with them in an appropriate manner.

Mr. Warner: Name names.

LUNG CANCER CASES

Hon. Mr. Elgie: In my absence, the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Cassidy) asked the Premier (Mr. Davis) a couple of questions regarding the Workmen’s Compensation Board and compensation for mesothelioma. I would like to advise the member that the board has already recognized mesothelioma as being related to asbestos exposure. The guidelines related to the adjudication of claims for this condition were published by the board in January 1976.

With respect to recognition of any current claims regarding mesothelioma, the board is required to establish that an individual did indeed have an occupational exposure to asbestos. The board has received two claims for mesothelioma from alleged exposure to asbestos in the manufacture of gas masks in the Ottawa area, and appropriate inquiries have already been instituted. The board has also initiated the necessary inquiries to identify any other individuals who might be involved.

I can assure the honourable member that I have asked the board to expedite its inquiry into this particular matter. Since in this instance it is not a question of establishing a relationship, but merely one of establishing exposure, I would expect that the matter would be resolved quickly.

With regard to the second part of the question, there is no provision in the act which would permit the payment of interim benefits to employees or their dependants until such time as entitlement has been established.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Will the minister simply explain why in the case of Mr. Janveau in the Ottawa area that although the family filed a claim back in August, it was not until they actually contacted the board again more than a month later that some action began from the WCB? Will the minister undertake that in future where there is a disease of this nature, which is so obviously related to asbestos exposure in industry, that interim payment of claim will be paid pending the final determination, rather than forcing people to wait months or even longer before they are able to qualify for entitlement?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I would like to advise the member that the causes of tumours, including mesothelioma, which is a class of tumour, are still unknown, but he is quite right: asbestos has been shown to be related to mesothelioma. That doesn’t mean that all mesotheliomas arise from asbestos. I think, therefore, he will think it is not an unreasonable request that the board try to establish that there was an exposure to asbestos before deciding whether or not to grant a claim.

I have a second answer, Mr. Speaker, if I may.

Mr. Speaker: All right. Try to be brief, will you? We have quite a backlog of answers to questions previously asked and we want to get them all in today.

KIMBERLY-CLARK FIRE

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Last week the Leader of [the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) asked me several questions regarding a fire at the Kimberly-Clark plant in Etobicoke. I would like to inform the member that there were two previous fires at the plant, on September 20, 1975, and on October 8, 1975. Paper rolls did not independently collapse during firefighting operations at either fire, although some rolls did collapse during the cleanup operations after the fire of September 20, 1975.

At the October 8, 1975, fire, some rolls of paper did collapse during the firefighting operations when a plant worker was attempting to move rolls with a fork-lift. As the rolls began to fall, he left his fork-lift and was struck by a roll, breaking his nose.

Following these fires, an investigation and a report of the circumstances of the fires was carried out by a committee that included representatives of the fire marshal’s office and the Etobicoke fire chief. The industrial health and safety branch was not involved in the post-fire investigation as, at that time, there was no policy to investigate such events. Apparently recommendations were made by the committee after those fires concerning storage procedures, but there is no written record of those recommendations.

Regarding the latest fire, I understand that an inquest is to be held. At that time I am certain the coroner will request any information that the industrial health and safety branch might have about the December 6, 1978, fire. However, so as to avoid prejudicing the testimony of anyone who might appear at the inquest, I do not believe it is advisable to release details of our current investigation at this moment.

REFUSE INCINERATOR

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Since the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman) has made a statement with regard to the saving of agricultural land, has the minister any new plan to have incinerators or something similar installed in some cities in Ontario to avoid using excellent farm land? I’m speaking particularly of Essex county, where the city of Windsor brings all its garbage into the riding of Essex North, and we have the best land in Ontario with the highest heat units and yet we’re continuing to pile it up. Is the minister coming out with any new system like some that are used in the United States for burning it?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: First of all, what the municipalities do with their refuse is, of course, their particular problem. We have a good deal of basic information on a lot of methods of treating municipal solid waste. I think we are fairly aware of the successful research plant that we have in the ministry. Certainly there are many communities right now discussing with the ministry various possibilities of how to treat their municipal waste on a co-operative basis. That is true of the Kent-Essex area. I think there will be some plans coming forward in the not-too-distant future, but on their initiative, and that’s where it should be.

One of the things I would also like to say in this regard is that it is very difficult to find any place in the world -- and it’s a real disappointment to our ministry -- where refuse-derived fuel is a total success. They have been plagued with technical difficulties and what has happened in this area in the last two or three years has been less than exciting. We expected that would have developed very nicely by now. It hasn’t, but we are very convinced that it is something the municipalities and our ministry will work together on and solve.

BEARE ROAD LANDFILL SITE

Hon. Mr. Parrott: This is a rather short answer, Mr. Speaker. On December 4, the leader of the third party (Mr. Cassidy) asked what reply I was giving to Metro Toronto’s request for financial assistance for a study of surface runoff at the Beare Road site.

I am pleased to inform him that during the meeting on Wednesday with the chairman of Metro, I informed Mr. Godfrey that the Ontario Ministry of the Environment has agreed to pay 50 per cent of the cost of the study up to a maximum of $10,000.

The funding will be provided under our waste management improvement program for 1979. Funds will be available in the 1979-80 fiscal year which, of course, commences on April 1.

I am sure the chairman was very pleased to receive that good news on Wednesday.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Ms. Gigantes: I have a question for the Minister of Education. The minister’s statement today finally committed the provincial government to legislation making it mandatory for boards of education to provide special education programs to meet the needs of the individual Ontario children. Can she indicate to the families of these children in Ontario when she expects the program to be in place? Does she expect the boards to be able to develop and deliver these programs on the miserly 4.06 per cent increase in provincial grants to boards announced by the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) last week?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: In the first place, the actual level of the general legislative grants has not been determined totally at this point. The honourable member is presuming what the level will be.

Ms. Gigantes: What was the Treasurer talking about?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Secondly, the memoranda to the school boards will be delivered to the school boards very early in the new year; hopefully, between Christmas and the new year.

Most of the school boards are aware of the initiatives we have been proposing to take in this area. Most are indeed concerned about their capabilities to comply with it. It is obvious that one cannot overnight ask for complete support of a program which, indeed, increases the responsibility of a school board rather significantly. It is anticipated that with the assistance of the Ministry of Education, with the provision of special education courses for teachers, with the other initiatives which the ministry is taking, the school boards will be able to comply totally with the requirement by September 1981.

It is in the spirit of phasing in the program that this is being introduced, because we understand that attempting to provide an immediate universal capability is totally and completely unrealistic.

FARM DRAINAGE

Mr. Sterling: This is a question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. In view of the statement to all of the clerks of the municipalities in eastern Ontario in relation to the ARDA program, could the minister clarify two points?

First of all: if work had begun on a municipal drain by September 8, 1978, but cannot be completed until after March 31, 1979, will there continue to be ARDA funding for such a drain?

Second: could he clarify for the members of the Legislature the position of both the minister’s government and the federal government in relation to drains which have not begun but which have been petitioned?

Hon. W. Newman: My understanding, from talking to Mr. Lessard, and the announcements that were made in Ottawa, is that any engineering contract that had actually been signed and on which work had started prior to, September 8, 1978, would be financed under the ARDA agreements to the end of March 1979. After the end of March 1979, if it is an ongoing program or an ongoing project, several of those could be approved by the federal minister, Mr. Lessard, to continue on past March 31, 1979.

The second part of the member’s question was: what happens to all those who have had engineering reports done or outlet drain work that needs to be done between now and the end of March 1979? It is my understanding -- well, it is not my understanding -- we are working on general development agreements with the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller). We are hoping there will be some agreement under a general development agreement that will cover most of the concerns the member has raised with me today.

ENERGY BOARD HEARINGS

Hon. Mr. Auld: Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) asked whether I was aware of a meeting which had taken place last June or so between the Ministry of Energy, possibly the minister, the Association of Major Power Consumers of Ontario, Ontario Hydro and the Ontario Energy Board. The implication of the question seems to be that some discussions took place at that time which in some way affected the costing and pricing hearings of the Ontario Energy Board.

[12:00]

In my reply yesterday I said I was not aware of any meeting but I would look into it. I also said my predecessor had advised me that he was not present at any meeting of the kind described and was not aware of it.

Since then, I have been informed that on May 25, 1978, my deputy minister arranged a lunch between Mr. Earle Alderson, chairman of OMPCO; Mr. Henry Sissons, a vice-president of Ontario Hydro; and Mr. Robert Clendining, chairman of the Ontario Energy Board.

Mr. Alderson, who is an executive with Domtar Limited in Montreal, had never met either Mr. Sissons or Mr. Clendining in their present capacities. The purpose of the informal lunch was to enable these individuals to meet and, more specifically, for Mr. Alderson to discuss with Mr. Sissons some concerns which AMPCO had with respect to its relationship with Ontario Hydro as well as its concerns with the delays and costs involved in the public hearing process generally. Mr. Clendining was invited so that he could meet Mr. Alderson and hear firsthand the concerns being expressed about the public hearing process.

I should also say that the minister was aware that a lunch had been arranged with Mr. Alderson so that Mr. Alderson could discuss, with Ontario Hydro and the deputy minister, issues involving Ontario Hydro.

For the past two years, AMPCO has met with the Minister of Energy and has advised him that its efforts to develop a more consultative process with Ontario Hydro, so that issues could be resolved before they became magnified out of proportion, were not meeting with much success. As a result of AMPCO’s feelings of frustration, which were expressed again at a meeting held May 1, 1978, between the minister and Mr. Alderson, the deputy minister arranged for Mr. Alderson to meet with Mr. Sissons, then the vice-president, distribution, of Ontario Hydro.

It is important to keep in mind that AMPCO is an association of some 250 individual industrial users of electricity who consume about 30 per cent of all the electricity produced by Ontario Hydro.

Ms. Gigantes: At cheap rates. Let them go to the public hearings and argue their case.

Hon. Mr. Auld: One would have assumed that Mr. Alderson and the senior Hydro official responsible for distribution would have known each other well. Why they did not is not worth speculating. The important point is that my deputy felt it was important that they should meet to see if they could try to resolve some of their difference.

At the May 1 meeting between the minister and Mr. Alderson, AMPCO also expressed concerns about the public hearing process --

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I am having trouble hearing this statement on a very important matter.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If honourable members would keep their private conversations down, everybody would be able to hear the minister who has the floor.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Not likely.

An hon. member: He talks with his mouth full of potatoes.

Hon. Mr. Auld: AMPCO, among many other matters, stated: the hearings were dragging on; it found itself in an adversary position and it did not feel that was the intent of the hearing process in the first place; that the Ontario Energy Board panel should permit a broader scope to the hearings --

Ms. Gigantes: When they don’t like what’s happening, they go to private discussions.

Hon. Mr. Auld: -- and, specifically, that it should include an examination of other methodologies, including the Ernst and Ernst study. I should add that on February 3, 1978, AMPCO had moved a motion at the Ontario Energy Board hearing that Hydro should, among other matters, produce marginal-cost-based rates using the methodologies of Ernst and Ernst. Significantly, that motion was denied by the OEB panel in September 1978.

As I stated earlier, the Leader of the Opposition’s question seemed to suggest that there was some possible impropriety in Mr. Alderson meeting with Ontario Hydro in the presence of the chairman of the OEB to discuss AMPCO’s relationships with Ontario and its concerns over the delays and attendant costs involved in the hearing process.

It is important to keep in mind that the chairman of the Ontario Energy Board is not a member of the board’s costing and pricing panel. Also, one of the chairman’s responsibilities is to be aware of and sensitive to the views of the public with respect to the OEB’s hearing process. In this capacity, the chairman endeavours to meet with as many individuals and groups as possible in order to assess the effectiveness or possible deficiencies of its hearing process.

Ms. Gigantes: Yes, right around the end of the public hearings.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Moreover, it is a board policy, and a particular practice of the chairman, not to discuss ongoing hearings with the presiding panel. I have been assured by the chairman that this policy was strictly adhered to in this case.

After reviewing the facts, I am satisfied that the initiative to bring AMPCO in closer touch with Ontario Hydro and the OEB can only result in better understanding and co-operation between AMPCO and those other two organizations.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary on this very important matter, Mr. Speaker, I have basically three questions that remain: The first one is, does the minister think it is correct in the midst of hearings by an impartial tribunal that the chairman of the tribunal, whether or not he is a hearing officer, should meet with Hydro and with one major party to what is a proceeding in front of the Ontario Energy Board, namely, AMPCO, rather than also having other major parties there? Does he think it’s right that such meetings should go on in the midst of these hearings?

Ms. Gigantes: Shame.

Mr. S. Smith: Secondly, on the change in Ontario Hydro’s position in front of that board, which originally, as the minister knows was to reduce the amount of subsidy the ordinary consumer basically pays to the big industries and reverse it to some extent, why did Hydro change its opinion very shortly after that particular meeting? Is there any cause-and-effect situation there? Those are two of the very basic questions.

A third one is, can the minister tell us how much it is going to cost the ordinary consumers to have to suffer through Hydro’s apparent reversal, if the Ontario Energy Board decides in favour of the new Hydro position rather than the one they were previously putting forward?

Hon. Mr. Add: In reply to the Leader of the Opposition, I think it is important to remember a couple of things. First of all, the cost and pricing study which was done by the staff of Ontario Hydro has not been either accepted or rejected by the board of Ontario Hydro. It was presented to the board to have the board conduct hearings and get opinions on the things that are in that study.

It is also important to recognize that the Ontario Energy Board does not set Hydro’s rates. It may make recommendations, but it is the board of Ontario Hydro which makes those rates. Conseque