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

June 17, 1980

31st Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L077 - Tue 17 Jun 1980 / Mar 17 jun 1980

MEMBERS’ EXPENSES

STORY IN TORONTO SUN

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ONTARIO BUSINESS BUY-BACK PROGRAM

DISCUSSION PAPER ON INTEREST RATE POLICY

TRIBUTE

ORAL QUESTIONS

REMOVAL OF PRODUCTION MACHINERY

AID TO PENSIONERS

MORTGAGE RATES

HEALTH AND SAFETY LAWS IN URANIUM MINES

ARGOSY RECEIVERSHIPS

CANADIAN SKI BOB ASSOCIATION

SECURE TREATMENT UNITS

SURVEY OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS

CARTIER SQUARE DEVELOPMENT

EARTH BERM DIKE

FORD ENGINE PLANT

CANADIAN CAR DIVISION STRIKE

FRUIT AND VEGETABLE PROCESSING

RESIDENTIAL TENANCY COMMISSION RULING

HILL REPORT ON GROUPS, SECTS AND CULTS

INDUSTRIAL HEARING LOSS

USE OF LIE DETECTORS

CAPITAL ALLOCATIONS FOR SCHOOL BOARDS

SARNIA LIGHT INDUSTRIAL PARK

MOTION

SUBCOMMITTEE SITTING

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PARKING FACILITIES FOR THE HANDICAPPED ACT

JUDICATURE AMENDMENT ACT

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES AMENDMENT ACT

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES AMENDMENT ACT

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF OTTAWA-CARLETON AMENDMENT ACT

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES AMENDMENT ACT

ANSWER TO QUESTION ON NOTICE PAPER

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

FOREST FIRES

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

ROYAL ASSENT

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ EXPENSES

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the individual members’ expenditures for the fiscal year 1979-80. Honourable members will find them in their postal boxes.

STORY IN TORONTO SUN

Mr. M. N. Davison: Mr. Speaker, I rise to correct the record regarding a story that appeared in this morning’s Toronto Sun. The article, entitled “Cops Blame Mafia in Bomb Wave,” alleges that a Mafia extortion ring is operating in the city of Hamilton.

The

article offers absolutely no evidence other than quotations from Staff Superintendent Keith Farraway of the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police suggesting that 18 people have been targets of violence in that city for failing to pay “protection money.” The staff superintendent states, as is quoted in the article: “It’s based on fear. (The victims) all immigrated from Italy and grew up with a fear of organized crime or the Mafia, whichever way you wish to express it.” But the staff superintendent himself admits that there is no evidence. He is also quoted as saying: “We have strong suspicions about who has been doing it but we have no evidence.”

This story, based on Staff Superintendent Farraway’s comments, offers no evidence to support the allegation of an Italian criminal conspiracy in the city of Hamilton. I resent the unfounded allegations in that article. Hamilton’s Italian community is a decent, hard-working, law-abiding and integral part of our society, and I feel that the record should be corrected in this matter.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ONTARIO BUSINESS BUY-BACK PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I would like to detail a new program being undertaken by my ministry to assist Canadians in buying foreign branch plants that otherwise would close down or be sold to foreign investors. This program was initially indicated in the speech from the throne. This initiative is the key to increasing Canadian participation in the economy and to maintaining viable manufacturing operations in Ontario.

We continue to seek necessary new international investment in this province, provided that investment offers secure, high-quality jobs, increased technology or otherwise enhances our manufacturing base. At the same time, we are looking to help Canadians exercise increased control over their economic affairs by acquiring and owning a greater share of our manufacturing sector.

This government has always responded positively to requests for assistance in buying out foreign companies where we felt the operation was viable and that government involvement would be economically productive. We now want to establish an identifiable and regular, rather than ad hoc, program making it clear to all Ontarians that this kind of assistance is available. Our program will place high priority on proposed investments by employee and management groups.

Under the basic program, our government will make available up to $1.5 million in loans and loan guarantees. This will consist of $500,000 in direct loans and $1 million in loan guarantees. Where circumstances warrant, however, these amounts can be increased or varied. Funds will be available through the Ontario Development Corporation, the Northern Ontario Development Corporation and the Eastern Ontario Development Corporation.

To qualify for assistance under the program, the buyer must be Canadian -- a Canadian-owned or controlled company, a Canadian investment group or a Canadian employee-management group. Buyers must also be prepared to make a sizeable investment of their own -- at least 10 per cent of the purchase price.

For a variety of reasons, there may be an increase in the number of foreign operations available for Canadian acquisition. Some foreign companies are attempting to cut back their operations in Canada for reasons that have nothing to do with the viability of the Canadian plant. For example, a number of international firms may decide to withdraw from certain areas of production. Others may require to sell their Canadian plants in an effort to liquidate assets at a time of tight money markets. As trade barriers come down, additional foreign companies may no longer feel the need to operate branch plants in Canada.

2:10 p.m.

Our buy-back program will ensure that Canadians have every opportunity to see that these foreign branch plants become healthy Canadian companies. In doing so, we are offering a Canadian alternative to the current policy of the federal government’s Foreign Investment Review Agency. We are offering a positive incentive to Canadian ownership rather than a negative impediment to responsible foreign investment.

As the members are aware, FIRA now reviews foreign purchase bids of companies operating in Canada, but FIRA does not yet become involved until a buyer and seller have agreed to terms, when it is often too late for a Canadian company to bid. Our buy-back program may provide potential sellers with an alternative buyer by making purchase funds available from institutions where security and creditworthiness may not be adequate for conventional lenders.

I want to specify that this program is not designed to assist Ontarians in purchasing outdated or uneconomic branch plants. It is not designed to “pick up the losers.” It is designed to permit us to retain sound, economically viable plants which otherwise would be closed or resold to other foreign owners. We have not used and we will not use public funds to support unprofitable operations or provide foreign sellers with an easy way out of their financial problems.

The buy-back program will be highly selective and will apply tough commercial standards in assessing any potential applications. All applications for assistance will undergo extensive examination for market potential, long-term viability, technological competitiveness and management capabilities. Given these criteria, I am confident that this program will represent an important mechanism in providing Canadians with an opportunity to compete for viable companies and obtain more control over our manufacturing sector.

Ontario’s nationalism in economic and other areas has always been a positive statement of our belief in Canada and our confidence in Canadians. This nonrestrictive step stresses positive Canadian opportunity without impeding continued international commerce.

DISCUSSION PAPER ON INTEREST RATE POLICY

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling today the discussion paper on interest rate policy prepared by the government for the information of this House. This paper is an interministerial one, prepared through the co-operative efforts of the ministries of Treasury and Economics, Agriculture and Food, Industry and Tourism and Housing. The purpose of this discussion paper is to assist members to identify the sources and consequences of the recent unprecedented high interest rates and to examine policy issues raised by these events.

At the outset, I would like to emphasize that the responsibility for securing lower and stable interest rates in the future must lie with the federal government. Provincial jurisdictions have neither the fiscal nor monetary levers necessary for pursuing an independent Canadian interest rate policy.

In this paper, in order to examine the causes of the recent upsurge in interest rates and the historically high level of rates of recent months, an assessment is made of the requirements for capital financing in Canada and the availability and source of funds. The paper discusses Canada’s current policy dilemma: that high interest rates induced by policy decisions of the Bank of Canada and the federal government treat the symptoms, not the disease. In particular, high interest rates help finance Canada’s current account deficit, but they do nothing to help reduce it.

The paper indicates that control of domestic inflation is essential to achieve lower interest rates and to restore the strength of the Canadian dollar. An effective, national anti-inflation strategy could create the proper environment for a strengthened Canadian dollar. The paper discusses the relationship between nominal and real rates of interest and reviews the impact of high levels of inflation. The capacity of each sector of the economy to adjust to high inflation is discussed. Options and mechanisms available to the government to assist the most affected sectors are presented.

Included among the options available to assist home owners are support of private sector initiatives, subsidies based on ability to pay, direct rate subsidization, mortgage interest tax credits and supply side measures, such as tax-exempt bonds and direct intervention in capital markets. The paper stresses that any action to offset the impact of rising rates carries with it costs which most be paid by taxpayers either immediately or in the future.

Because of the immediate needs of Ontario’s farmers for capital to begin the spring planting and because of the lack of action on the part of the federal government, the government implemented the farm interest assistance plan in advance of the release of this paper.

It is hoped this paper will assist the members of the Ontario Legislature and other interested individuals to assess the scope available to borrowers and lenders to adapt their activities in a period of temporarily high interest dates. It is clear that there is no substitute for tong-term economic policies aimed to stabilize interest rates at lower levels in the future. Temporary, Band-Aid measures are not viable in the long run. Lower inflation, enhanced productivity, more balanced industrial development and a resolution of the problem of growing fiscal imbalances in Canada are essential aspects of any lasting solution to Canada’s economic problems.

TRIBUTE

Mrs. Campbell: If I might crave the indulgence of the House at this time, I want to pay tribute to a great Canadian and a fine Metro Toronto statesman. I am referring, of course, to Edwin J. Pivnick, QC, who was the reeve of Forest Hill. I served with him on Metro council, Mr. Speaker, and I found him to be a man of great character.

It is easy to judge a person in moments of triumph, but I served with him at the time when he had the difficult and, to him, very sad task of discussing the mechanics of the transfer of the political bureaucracy from Forest Hill to the city of Toronto during that amalgamation.

Mr. Pivnick was a man of great character. He was a man of concern and a gentle person. I would say of him that probably he was one of the last of those politicians of whom it could be said that he was indeed a courtly gentleman. I would ask the House to join with me in expressing to his wife and to his family our deep sympathy at this time.

ORAL QUESTIONS

REMOVAL OF PRODUCTION MACHINERY

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Treasurer that bears indirectly on some of this economic nationalism the Minister of Industry and Tourism is belatedly discovering.

Is the Treasurer aware of the situation at the Rockwell International of Canada Limited plant in Chatham where Local 127 of the United Automobile Workers of America has been on a legal strike for three months? In particular, is he aware that production machinery -- bores and dies for producing stabilizers -- has been removed from the plant and sent to Rockwell plants in the United States?

Given the experience in Windsor, where pieces of equipment wore removed from plants there and sent to their American masters across the border, would the Treasurer answer the following question: Since most machinery of this kind would undoubtedly have been purchased using depreciation allowances, including rapid depreciation write-offs which are available in this province and this country, does Ontario make any effort to recover its share of those depreciation write-offs when the machinery is shipped across the border?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the answer would be yes. If the transfer price of any machinery exceeded the book value, there would be a capital gain on the company’s books, and therefore it would be taxable.

Mr. S. Smith: Will the Treasurer tell us exactly how many dollars and cents Ontario has ever recovered from companies that ship equipment to their masters across the border? Can we have a listing of those instances where Ontario has recovered as much as five cents in these circumstances from the depreciation?

Will the minister not agree that removing production machinery from Ontario to the United States, in the midst of a strike in this situation, could have the effect of prolonging the strike, or possibly even have a very devastating effect on Canadian workers on a permanent basis?

What is the minister going to do to ensure that companies set up in this country do not simply act as agents to ship machinery back to their home companies across the border whenever things get rough in Canada?

2:20 p.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I do not think any plant normally ships machinery back and forth just because of a strike. I do not like the removal of any production facilities from our country whenever the economics and the market justify their location here.

Most of the details of the member’s question are best answered by my colleagues in either the Ministry of Industry and Tourism or the Ministry of Labour, because they relate to those ministries more than to mine. The tax question was quite properly mine.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I presume the Treasurer will be pursuing this question to some extent; will he check to see whether that company received a sales tax exemption on the purchase of that machinery in the first place as a result of the sales tax exemption passed by his government?

Hon. F. S. Miller: If that machinery was purchased since sales tax exemptions were permitted, I would assume they got the exemption. It happens that also becomes a part of the value of the machinery from a book point of view, whether one pays the tax or not. As the member knows, sales tax exemptions on machinery in Ontario equal roughly half the purchase price of machinery in Ontario. It depends on the particular type of machinery. If it is used directly in the change of the shape of the product, it is entitled to a sales tax exemption. If it simply transfers the product, it is not.

Mr. S. Smith: With regard to the tax matter, which the Treasurer accepts is within his purview, in the case of Rockwell and in the case of the automobile company in Windsor where this is alleged to have happened, will the Treasurer check to see whether rapid depreciation did take place and whether the company has obtained any benefit from the rapid depreciation?

In the case of Rockwell, I gather the actual owners of the equipment were the auto companies, but will the minister check into that and see to it that if that did happen, if they obtained the benefit of rapid depreciation in Ontario, the province would recover that amount of money immediately? Will he also introduce the kind of legislation necessary to make sure this kind of transfer of equipment does not further occur?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am not sure I could agree to the latter part because, in fact, we often get equipment from the United States. I am sure the honourable member is aware of that. It is not always new equipment. Used equipment has to be transferable or saleable.

I will be quite pleased to check into the details of the transfer to see what the actual pricing mechanisms were.

AID TO PENSIONERS

Mr. S. Smith: A question for the Treasurer, Mr. Speaker: Since it now appears that the government will be implementing its new pensioner tax grants, even though there are thousands of people who will receive less the new way than they did the old way, will the Treasurer undertake to correspond with a Mr. J. Moreton, at 101 Humber Boulevard in Toronto, and explain it to this gentleman, whose total income is very small indeed? I can give it to the Treasurer in exact terms: his total income is $388.52 per month.

Will the Treasurer please convey to Mr. Moreton his reasoning as to why Mr. Moreton must now receive $113.90 less under this new system in order that the government can give $550 more to someone like Harold Ballard, who apparently stands to make $1 million just in dividends from his shareholdings in Maple Leaf Gardens? Will the Treasurer please undertake to tell Mr. Moreton what I cannot tell him, which is why he has to get $114 less so that Harold Ballard can get $550 more?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the member is extrapolating the truth, as he always does. He is assuming that I did one for the other. That is not true. A great many Ontario senior citizens will show their appreciation this fall when we will see literally 700,000 people benefit from what is a very fine program.

The fact remains that $388 a month is less than the minimum guaranteed income, as of July 1, for any citizen in the province: so, if the member will send me that piece of information, I will be glad to correspond with him. Like it or not, between the federal government and the Ontario government, we have raised the basic minimum incomes for all people by $540 a year; so his minimum income must be at least $5,200 a year as of July 1.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, perhaps after the Premier has written to Mr. Moreton in Toronto, he can write to one of my constituents, Mr. Marsh, who currently resides in Huronview, a home for the aged, and explain to him why he will not receive either the $110 pensioner tax credit or the property tax grant this year. This is a pensioner whose Ontario tax credits last year totalled $371.51. This year, he will get the $50 sales tax grant, period.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I do not know what the gentleman’s income is, but obviously he has to be above $5,200 a year in income, or else he would have received the $120 a year through the guaranteed annual income system alone.

Mr. Speaker, you know Ontario has one of the highest availabilities of institutional space in the world for people over 65. Our average cost per person in those facilities, I think, is something like $6,300 of taxpayers’ money. My program was aimed at supporting people who are not subsidized in institutions and who, in fact, are faced with the cold, hard realities of living in the outer world where they want to be. That is the kind of people who deserve the support. Those are the ones who got the support.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, does the Treasurer not understand that the real inequity in his pensioner tax credit system concerns those people who are on disability pensions, many of whom have children still at home, and who have very high expenses? That is where the inequity in his system really is. Will he make a commitment to this chamber to do something about that?

Hon. F. S. Miller: There certainly are very real problems for people under 65 in many categories, including the disabled. I have never tried to deny that. My program at this point was aimed specifically at the people over 65, and I know my colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Norton) has expressed that concern and is doing his best to make sure our programs reflect their needs.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, could the minister suggest to me how I can respond to 150 residents of the Sunnyside Home in Kitchener who have indicated to me that they have calculated they are going to lose in excess of $100, which they would have used in the past to buy shoes and clothes that they cannot buy with the monthly comfort allowance? These people are going to be definitely disadvantaged under his program. How can I respond to them?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The monthly comfort allowance so far has been increased by $120 a year.

MORTGAGE RATES

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer about the belated statement on interest rates which he has brought down today. Clearly the timing of the statement indicates that the government will not bring in legislation before the end of this week. Could I ask the Treasurer what the government’s intentions are on the proposal which the Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett) has taken to the federal government, which would, in fact, provide mortgage rate relief for people who roll over mortgages and who have a gross debt service ratio exceeding 30 per cent of their income?

Is it the government’s intention to bring in that scheme, or to bring in a similar scheme proposed by the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren), two months ago, whether or not the federal government refuses to act?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, this is one of those cases in which we clearly said the interest rate policy is a federal issue and Ontario had a role to play. At the time we started this, the interest rates at the central bank were 16.2 per cent. They are 11.2 per cent now. They have dropped five full percentage points since this paper was introduced. That is good luck and to some degree an indication of the stability of the Canadian dollar in world markets in the interim, because our dollar has stayed up; in fact, it has increased in value, I believe, since the mid-March figures, when interest rates were at their historical high.

We have suggested a two-stage program in that paper. The federal government would be the first in, with a $500 loan -- and I believe it is interest-free, as proposed -- to anybody who is paying more than 30 per cent of his gross family income; should that leave them still above 30 per cent, a second sum of up to $500 a year would be granted by Ontario to those people. But we do feel it is essential that the federal government be willing to lend money; we, in turn, are willing then to grant money. I think there is a great difference.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Cassidy: Since I have no particular confidence that the federal Liberals will do anything better than the provincial Conservatives, can the Treasurer restore my faith in the government -- what little faith there is -- with an assurance that, if there is a no from the federal government, this government will bring in a loan grant system or some other means of relief for home owners who were hit by the cost of excessive renewals?

In particular, will the Treasurer assure the House that an Ontario provincial scheme will be backdated to the late winter and spring of this year when home owners were particularly hard hit by the cost of those rollovers and not be backdated only from June 1 this year?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I certainly think we need to encourage our federal government, which has stated it will act; it came out very early and said it would. In putting forward our paper, I intend to take that as a given; that their intention to help people in real need, as stated early by Mr. MacEachen, I believe, and Mr. Cosgrove, was genuine. I am beginning to worry about it.

I am beginning to think they are beginning to shuck a number of their promises made in the heat and the pressure of the winter. But Ontario stands ready to co-operate with them, as we should in a federated country.

Mr. Peterson: Could the minister enlighten me, please? What is the possible purpose of this discussion paper except as a sop to the New Democratic Party? What is he accomplishing by tabling an academic discussion paper of the possible options of this House? Why did he waste the taxpayers’ time preparing it, and what is he going to do about the real problems that he has not faced yet?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The fact is it was suggested that a study be made. This government accepted that suggestion and we did it. We are always accused of being insensitive to suggestions from the opposition; we accepted one.

Mr. Cassidy: The member for London Centre was so exercised over this very question that he proposed a motion of no confidence in the government just seven weeks ago over an issue which he now says should not even have been studied in a paper. I do not know how inconsistent they can get.

Mr. Speaker, since neither the Treasurer nor myself has any confidence in the ability of the member for London Centre or the member for Hamilton West (Mr. S. Smith) to get the federal government to intervene to protect home owners, can we have an assurance before this House rises -- can we have it today -- that if the federal government will not co-operate in this venture, there will be a scheme from Ontario to protect those home owners who had to renegotiate their mortgages this spring and who were having to pay renegotiated mortgage rates of 16 or 17 per cent? Why should they be made victims?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I would hope, rather than trying to lay it on me, the member would co-operate with this government to get the federal government to do what it should do. The federal government is in control of monetary policy, and the federal government should act with us.

HEALTH AND SAFETY LAWS IN URANIUM MINES

Mr. Cassidy: I have a new question for the Minister of Labour which also concerns this government’s passing the buck to the federal Liberal government, in this case with relation to the protection of the health and safety of uranium miners in Elliot Lake.

Is the Minister of Labour aware that contrary to his statements in the House a few weeks ago, throughout negotiations with the federal authorities the steelworkers were told by lawyers from the federal Justice department that referencing Bill 70 to the Canada Labour Code will still mean that federal law will take precedence over Bill 70 whenever there is a conflict between the two statutes?

If so, would the minister not agree that the recent move by the federal Department of Labour in referencing Bill 70 under the Canada Labour Code is simply inadequate and that it will not afford the uranium miners the protection of Bill 70? What is this government going to do in order to get the uranium miners that protection?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I think this government has made its intentions very clear. It was those very intentions that initiated the Ham commission, which was brought about by the very issues the member is talking about -- health and safety in relation to uranium mining.

I take some degree of concern with the statement the member made that we have done nothing. As he knows, I have reported to this House on many occasions that we have been taking the aggressive lead in trying to get the federal government to adjust its legislation so that it complied in some way with the legislation we have in Ontario. The most recent suggestion made to us is the one the member has reported -- that they will incorporate by order in council Bill 70, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and the mining health regulations.

I know there is some legal opinion that there still remains a conflict as to which legislation prevails and we are in the midst of discussions with them about it. Our position has been made clear all along. We prefer the legislation that we have and we will continue to pursue that avenue.

It is not easy for inspectors to make this differentiation, so the member is not pointing out problems of which I am not aware. Inspectors are up there acting as agents on behalf of the federal government and it is difficult for them to draw these distinctions. The clearer it can be made, the better. I do not argue with the member about that. We have been involved in negotiations about those very matters now for several months.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Will the minister tell the House unequivocally that the federal Minister of State for Mines, Hon. Ms. Erola, is misleading the miners and misleading the people of Ontario when she says those miners are getting the protection under Bill 70? In fact, the miners are getting inadequate protection with particular regard to the right to refuse and the operation of the health and safety committees.

Will the minister also indicate clearly on the record that there are going to be severe problems with the proposals of the federal government, because it will take up to a year or more to get the right to prosecute under the Canada Labour Code, when under Bill 70 here in Ontario prosecutions can be decided upon and undertaken within a week or two?

Doesn’t the minister agree that the miners of Elliot Lake should get the same protection as minors in every other mining operation in Ontario? Will Ontario ensure that those uranium miners get that protection?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I have made very clear over the past months my position with regard to the health and safety of miners. It is expressed in the Occupational Health and Safety Act and in the regulations.

The facts of life are that there happens to he a jurisdictional dispute ever authority in these areas. I have made our position very clear; I will continue to do so. The member knows very well that the federal government has claimed it believes its order in council gives those miners the same protection other Ontario miners have. We will continue to have discussions with them about that. I believe, if I am not mistaken, that there was an indication in one statement that if that did not seem to be so, they would take further steps. Certainly we are continuing to have discussions about it.

Mr. Martel: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Has Ontario put forth the position that the province is the authority that would prosecute rather than the federal authorities? If the federal authorities do not grant that, should we not simply opt out and tell the federal authorities they should look after that situation rather than have Ontario be the football in the game between the miners and the federal authorities, who seem to be getting away scot-free in this whole discussion?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I understand the point the member for Sudbury East makes. He knows very well it would be very difficult for one jurisdiction to grant its legal capacities to another. Once they have made the declaration, as they have in the area of uranium, I do not think that constitutionally they can give away such things as that. It has to be incorporated in their own legislation and that is a matter that will have to be discussed with them.

ARGOSY RECEIVERSHIPS

Mr. Peterson: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask about the Argosy Investments Limited affair.

Is the minister aware that on December 10, 1973, under the hand of J. C. Horwitz, chairman of the Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal, the following order was issued: “That the continued registration of Argosy Investments shall be subject to the condition that John David Carnie shall forthwith surrender and give up share or shares of Agrosy Investments Limited”?

To the best of my knowledge, that was not done and he was still the president and involved at the time of the bankruptcy.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that that order was issued on December 10, 1973, and there is no question that that order was complied with.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Breithaupt: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Were any further comments or complaints made to the minister with respect to the operation of Argosy Finance Company Limited that would have occasioned the requirements of supervision, or possibly the issuance of a new order that may have helped avoid the problem many investors became involved in?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, not to the best of my knowledge in that regard. I take it when the honourable member is talking about Argosy Finance Company Limited the question pertains to Argosy Investments Limited. It was another company.

In connection with a related company not involved in the present matter, there was a significant form of monitorship over London Loan Limited from approximately last fall until its sale to outside parties. That involved, in the view of the executive director of financial institutions, Mr. Thompson, a considerable amount in syndicated mortgages. The monitorship was to bring down -- and it did -- the amount in syndicated mortgages. But that is the only monitorship of a Carnie firm, or one that was related, until the time of the bankruptcy.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, how could it transpire that in following the order of the Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal -- and obviously Mr. Carnie’s personal relationship with this company was in some sort of question at the time the order was given -- he could end up back as president and in fact be president at the time of the bankruptcy of that company? How could that transpire under the minister’s direction?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, so far we are up to the third company involved in this. The particular application involved Mr. Carnie and Argosy Investments Limited, and Mr. David A. Walker, also known as Dawaca Holdings.

In 1977, Mr. Carnie came not before the registrar of mortgage brokers but before the Ontario Securities Commission. It is a matter of record at that time that the director refused him registration. A full hearing was held by the commission where Mr. Carnie was allowed registration.

CANADIAN SKI BOB ASSOCIATION

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Culture and Recreation. I would like to ask him what steps his ministry is taking to rectify the situation involving a trail of debt and destruction left by the national Canadian Ski Bob Association as a result of its international meet in Thunder Bay after receiving a grant from the Ministry of Culture and Recreation of $30,000. Why has the Ski Bob Association not paid its outstanding bills of $15,000 to the Alpine Inn, $5,000 to various ski clubs and moneys to individuals?

Further, is he aware of a letter written by his colleague the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman), on “We Treat You Royally” stationery, indicating that his officials in the Ministry of Industry and Tourism were fully aware of it and that along with the officials in the Ministry of Culture and Recreation they were going to rectify the situation? That was over six weeks ago. What is happening?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, we are still looking into this. When I get a full account of it I will be prepared to report to the House.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware of the seriousness of this outstanding debt in that the government of Ontario, through the Northern Ontario Development Corporation, is the first-mortgage holder on the Alpine Inn in Thunder Bay? Is he aware that lack of payment of this outstanding bill has at least contributed to the temporary closing of the hotel and the temporary layoff of 35 of its employees? Can he explain why one of his own ministry officials who went up for the meeting has not yet paid his hotel bill?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I do not know what happened to my own employee, but I do know that we are looking into this. I do not think it would serve any purpose at all to comment in a very fragmented way at this time. I will be getting a full report on the whole matter. When that is complete, I will be pleased to report to this House and any members here.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: The honourable minister has taken it as notice and he has committed himself to giving a detailed response at a later date.

SECURE TREATMENT UNITS

Mr. Blundy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services.

In view of the recommendations of the coroner’s jury into the death of training school ward Paul Marling that there is an urgent need for more secure treatment units in Ontario; in view of last summer’s sudden closing of the juvenile secure treatment unit at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre and in view of the loss of the Royal Ottawa Hospital adolescent service, which has been in chaos and I believe is now nonoperational, can the minister explain why he has let the care of our more disturbed children lapse into this state of virtual nonexistence in the province?

Can be tell me how many bona fide secure treatment beds for severely disturbed children currently are operational in the province?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member ought to be very cautious about taking some of the statements made by certain individuals who have a vested interest in particular programs -- I am thinking of places such as Ottawa -- and accepting those at face value. There are some internal political situations within some of the healing professions in this province as well that may not be before this Legislature. That has been characteristic of some of these professional groups for some time.

We have been moving over the past couple of years, as I have indicated a number of times, from a primarily residential-based treatment model to more of an outreach program for supportive treatment for children in their homes or in community settings.

It is true that the coroner’s jury in the case of Paul Marling did make recommendations which are quite consistent with what I announced to the Legislature some two or three weeks or so ago -- I have forgotten the exact date. That is the announcement that during the course of this year we would be opening, the first as early as this summer, four additional secure treatment units for children or juveniles across the province. One of those will be in the Metropolitan Toronto area, another in London, and one is to he in Ottawa.

Some of the recent publicity in Ottawa generated by one of the doctors of the Royal Ottawa Hospital was mistaken. He was talking about an 18-year-old who was not a juvenile and who was referred to the service by the adult court. The doctor, mistakenly I think, had said it was through lack of juvenile services that he was unable to deal with that 18-year-old individual. That was incorrect, I believe. Furthermore, he did not happen to mention that he had recently received $500,000 from the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) for the provision of services to people such as that 18-year-old.

2:50 p.m.

There are, as I say, some very real, professional politics being played in that situation because we have had negotiations with the Royal Ottawa Hospital. They have been very difficult negotiations and I have indicated in my announcement that it would not necessarily be at the Royal Ottawa Hospital where that service will be located in Ottawa, unless they indicate some willingness to comply to a degree that they have not done as yet. We are at present considering other agencies in that community as well.

Mr. Blundy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The minister did not say how many beds are currently in use in the province for adolescents. In addition to obtaining that answer, I would like to ask the minister how many children or adolescents are now in adult psychiatric hospital secure treatment centres in the province?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, the specific figure in respect of either of those two questions I cannot give the honourable member off the top of my head, but I will certainly undertake to try to have those figures for him by Thursday of this week before the House rises.

The number of children who might be in what was described as adult psychiatric facilities would really be very small. There are some psychiatric units for juveniles that are still located within the same building as the adult psychiatric services. We have an arrangement with the Ministry of Health at the moment to maintain those under a common administration, but the program that is available to the juveniles is still under the direction and control of my ministry. I will try to get specific figures for the honourable member.

SURVEY OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy concerning the monthly survey of petroleum product supplies and projected demands. The minister informed the House on December 20 last that the National Energy Board had made a commitment at the federal-provincial energy officials’ meeting on December 12 that this data would he publicly available on a regular monthly basis, starting January 1980. Is the minister aware that the survey was released for January 1980 but not since, and that the National Energy Board has once again retreated into secrecy as far as this important information is concerned?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, whatever the commitment was, I assumed it was being honoured on behalf of the board with respect to any request coming from members. I will be glad to check into that, of course. We have been in receipt of all this information and are attending meetings in Ottawa on a monthly basis. Now that the honourable member has drawn that to my attention I will be glad to follow up on the matter.

Ms. Gigantes: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Considering the fact that it is absolutely ludicrous we enter this fall season without the public of Ontario having information available as we did last fall season, what will the minister do to ensure the public of Ontario will have access to this information as we start into the heating season?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, as I have already indicated, and as the honourable member will recall, last fall we had an exchange of questions and answers in this House and information was provided to the people of Ontario upon which they could base their decisions and come to their own conclusions with respect to that particular question. I have no reason to believe we will not have access to all the information we require in order to make our own judgements with respect to the upcoming heating season.

CARTIER SQUARE DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Government Services. For the past couple of months we have been talking about a very favourite project of mine, the Ottawa courthouse. I understand the minister had a meeting last week with the head of the National Capital Commission and the mayor of Ottawa. Before the House rises for the summer, I would like to know the state of this project and when we can expect it to be finally resolved.

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Speaker, to answer the honourable member, last Thursday my deputy and I were asked by the chairman of the National Capital Commission, Bud Drury, to attend a meeting to look at the overall site plan. As the member knows, there is quite a large site plan for Cartier Square. Attending that meeting, as the honourable member has said, were the mayor of Ottawa, one or two councillors and a couple of planners, as well as three people representing the Cartier Square Citizens’ Committee and I think the full slate of officers of the National Capital Commission.

At that meeting their planners showed us the overall plan for this large parcel of land and particularly how it would affect our new Ottawa courthouse. I believe we all came away from that meeting feeling it was a good site plan. However, the mayor wanted to take it back to her council, as did the citizens’ committee, and there will be a meeting in two weeks’ time at which time I am hopeful they will come back and say they approve of it and we can get on with the drawings with their architect.

I am as interested as the member for Carleton-Grenville in seeing this courthouse completed and I am hopeful we will be able to meet the time frame of 1985.

EARTH BERM DIKE

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources with regard to a letter he sent to the Sandwich West township about an earth berm dike being constructed by Allied Chemical.

The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrot) also sent a letter saying that the Ministry of Natural Resources was responsible for any upstream flooding. The Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) sent a letter that said everything was in order.

In the minister’s letter, though, he says, “It is my understanding that plans for the project were reviewed and found acceptable by the Essex Region Conservation Authority, who have made a mandate to control river flooding.” The Essex Region Conservation Authority, in its letter to the township, says, “The Essex Region Conservation Authority therefore have no existing legislative basis for regulating placement of fill, such as the reference to the above.”

Can the minister tell me who has jurisdiction when the minister tells the township that the conservation authority has jurisdiction and the authority says it does not have jurisdiction? Has the minister approved it? Who has to approve it?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I will have to look up the file on that because I recall the correspondence and I recall some fairly extensive coverage in the press. We were in touch with the conservation authority which indicated -- as I recall without checking the file -- that it did not feel the berm, which was being constructed, would have any effect on flooding. Consequently it had no objection to the work being done.

The most direct authority that the conservation authorities normally have is the so-called “dump and fill” regulation. I assume the authority has those regulations, although I could not quote them from memory. I will he delighted to find out.

Mr. Ruston: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister not aware that there must be a bylaw passed naming the flood plain area before the conservation authority has an authority to go in and put on its rules and regulations? Is the minister aware that it takes a bylaw by the municipality to give it the authority?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that on occasion, under the official plan, this may be designated. Where there is no official plan, the authority passes its own regulations.

FORD ENGINE PLANT

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Tourism. It concerns the construction of the Ford Motor Company engine plant in Windsor. I would like the minister to confirm or deny a lead story on CBC in Windsor last night that the Ford engine plant will be retooled for four-cylinder engines before it is even opened and that the plant will not open for another three years. Could he confirm that?

If in fact that is true, could he tell us what talks he plans on having with Ford Motor Company in order to maintain some of the existing facilities in the interim, for which they have already announced closure?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm that story. I have heard about it and we checked it out with Ford. Ford does not confirm that to us at this time.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Speaker, if Ford cannot confirm that at this time, will the minister continue to have talks with Ford to ensure that delay, as a result of retooling, does not take place? If they are contemplating a different product there than planned, what employment programs or benefit programs will this government put in place for those 2,400 workers whose jobs will therefore be delayed by those production delays?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I can only assure the member that we will be monitoring the situation and having continuing discussions with Ford if we ascertain that they are reconsidering exactly what products should go into that plant. I would emphasize at this time we have no information that indicates they are going to change the product in that plant. If they are, we will deal with the matters the member has raised at that time.

3:00 p.m.

CANADIAN CAR DIVISION STRIKE

Mr. Hennessy: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour in regard to the mediation meetings to be held between Hawker Siddeley Canadian Car division and the striking United Auto Workers of America, Local 1075 in Fort William and Thunder Bay. I understand there was no agreement. I would like to know if the minister has decided on what steps be will take now.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, it is true that mediation efforts did not bring about a resolution. They were successful, however, in convincing both parties to change their position slightly. I am advised the mediator involved is keeping in touch with the parties and will continue to do so. If there is any indication of a willingness to resume negotiations, he will do so.

FRUIT AND VEGETABLE PROCESSING

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Could the minister inform us why the consultative task force on the processed fruit and vegetable industry of Ontario has never prepared a final report? This task force was formed through the Premier’s advisory committee on the economic future. In view of the fact it issued a progress report to the minister on July 27, 1979, for him to asses and respond to prior to reconvening in the fall of 1979, where is that final report?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, last Friday I responded to this honourable member on the work that went on and the amount that the different marketing boards have done to implement the recommendations of that particular task force.

Mr. Riddell: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: With due respect, we did not receive the report. The minister simply tabled recommendations. In view of the fact that the recommendations of the progress report were identified for the purpose of preliminary action by the government to determine the extent to which the task force views and those of the government may coincide, does the absence of government action on this report indicate the government’s disagreement with the task force or the belief that there is no problem in this most vital Ontario industry, which has seen the loss of more than 40 fruit-processing plants since 1960?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, if it be your wish, I could read the answer I gave last Friday again.

Mr. Speaker: That is not necessary.

Mr. Swart: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the critical state we have now reached with regard to the loss of the processing plants and the canning factories and the increased importation of processed foods, fruit and vegetables into this country, is the minister planning on tabling in this Legislature in the near future a plan for reversing this situation? Will the government take action to ensure we are going to replace many of these food imports?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, again I could go to some statistics if it be your wish. But in regard to the imports the honourable members refer to, if my memory serves me correctly, last week the figure was $800 million. Am I wrong in suggesting that? One item alone, bananas, oranges and other fresh, frozen and dried fruit came to $192 million, one quarter of that $800 million. They are products we do not grow here.

I have to apologize. On Sunday afternoon I saw a small orange tree from which I picked an orange. It was growing in a livingroom. So we do grow some oranges here.

I could take up an hour on reading these. I am trying to pick out some of the larger items.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the honourable minister could just table them?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Yes, I would be glad to table them if that be your wish, Mr. Speaker.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCY COMMISSION RULING

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I can’t hear the question.

Ms. Bryden: Three weeks ago in an open letter I drew to the minister’s attention the fact that the Residential Tenancy Commission had ruled that the more than 1,000 apartment units in the Main Square complex in my riding are not covered by rent review. When will the minister respond to my letter which asked him to meet with representatives of the tenants to discuss the possibility of an amendment to the act in order to provide these tenants with the benefits of rent review which are enjoyed by other Ontario residents in privately owned buildings?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, that isn’t exactly an accurate description of that particular project. The ruling by the rent review board was that it was exempt under the act because the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation was administering it.

The member knows very well that in the whole length of the very lengthy hearings which went on and on and on over the residential tenancies bill, which is now before the courts, one of the final determinations was that we weren’t going to change any of the rules in the middle of the game. It is that simple.

Ms. Bryden: Supplementary: I understand the building is not administered by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation but is administered on its behalf by Victoria Wood, a private development company that owns the building. I ask the minister why should a building, which is very similar to privately owned limited dividend buildings, be exempt from rent review when such limited dividend buildings are subject to rent review? It seems discriminatory against those tenants.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I draw the attention of the member to the fact that the present Residential Tenancies Act in its origins and with its exemptions was the will of this House away back in 1975.

HILL REPORT ON GROUPS, SECTS AND CULTS

Mr. Sweeney: I have a question for the Premier, Mr. Speaker. I am referring to the Hill report that was released yesterday. Given the specific examples of abuse that are listed in the report, given the Attorney General’s (Mr. McMurtry) comment that some of his officials actively participated in gathering that evidence and, finally, given the Attorney General’s comments that cabinet would make a decision as to what to do with this, can we be assured that charges will be laid where evidence of specific abuse has been identified?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t like to give people assurances that charges will be laid before investigations have been made. I would say to the honourable member just what the Attorney General said yesterday. I haven’t had an opportunity yet to read the report. The report will be assessed by the minister. It will be coming forward to cabinet with whatever recommendations he has and we will deal with it. I think it would be very premature to speculate on what might or might not happen as a result of Dr. Hill’s report.

Mr. Sweeney: Supplementary: Is it reasonable for us to believe that if the existing legislation, which Dr. Hill says is sufficient, proves to be insufficient, new legislation will be brought forward?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I guess the honourable member is suggesting he disagrees with Dr. Hill’s observations that new legislation is not required. I don’t want to be repetitious, but I haven’t yet read the report. I don’t think the Attorney General is ready yet to bring it to cabinet with recommendations. To speculate on what might or might not happen is really premature. I am not saying that to be difficult or provocative, but I think we should have an opportunity to read through and assess the report.

3:10 p.m.

INDUSTRIAL HEARING LOSS

Mr. Martel: A question of the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker: The recent report of the Advisory Council on Occupational Health and Occupational Safety has a

section concerning occupational hearing loss, prevention, compensation and rehabilitation. In

part it states, “In simple terms, an 85-decibel exposure level protects about 92 per cent of those at risk, while a 90-decibel exposure level protects only 82 to 85 per cent.” Is the government prepared to introduce changes that would reduce the exposure level to 85 decibels?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the member for Hamilton East. (Mr. Mackenzie) last week, those particular matters, including the loud noise levels, will soon be published and gazetted. Whatever the government’s determination is with regard to an appropriate noise level will presumably he influenced greatly by the recommendation of the Advisory Council on Occupational Health and Occupational Safety.

Mr. Laughren: That is a terrible answer.

Mr. Martel: A supplementary: In view of the shortage of speech therapists -- there are 373 and some 460 are required -- and in view of the shortage of audiologists and particularly in view of the poor distribution of these services, what does the minister intend to do to guarantee that adequate aural rehabilitation services will be provided to those workers in the province who are suffering industrial hearing loss, and in particular to those 800 or more cases in Sudbury who do not have any services whatsoever?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, in all fairness, the member and I have talked about this in the past. It was as a result of discussions he and I had that the very issue of occupational hearing loss was referred to the advisory council.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: There are some rowdies around, Mr. Speaker.

It was referred to the advisory council. The Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) and I will be meeting with the chairman of the advisory council to discuss the need for technologists in the province, after carrying out an assessment of what our capacity is now. The appropriate provision of rehabilitation services is clearly another matter that came out of that report, and to which we are going to be directing our attention. I agree with the honourable member. This is why I initiated that whole study.

USE OF LIE DETECTORS

Mr. Stong: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Justice. Does the minister endorse the use of lie detectors in the investigation of certain rape complainants, and for what use would he sanction them?

Hon. Mr. Walker: The matter relates to the newspaper story involving Peel region, and I understand in that particular case the permission of the individuals was garnered. In that case, I would find it very difficult to object to it.

Mr. Stong: Is it a policy of the ministry to endorse the use of lie detectors for rape victims across Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Walker: I think the member would have to re-read what I said to find I did not say that.

CAPITAL ALLOCATIONS FOR SCHOOL BOARDS

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Education: As a follow-up to the statement made by the minister last Monday in this House that capital allocations for 1981 will be known within the next week by all the boards except those in Metropolitan Toronto, which still have some questions to be resolved before a final decision can be made, can the minister inform the House what these questions are that must be resolved, and when the boards of Toronto, such as the separate school board, can know when final decisions are to be made so that construction can be undertaken for September openings?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, Mr. Speaker. The allocations that are related specifically to September 1980 openings were made quite some time ago. We were talking about allocations for 1981, and I cannot give details at this point. I would hope that by the end of next week we will be able to be in touch with the metropolitan school boards of all kinds to provide them with information.

Mr. Philip: By way of supplementary: Can the minister explain to the House why it is that she has offered four deadlines and has broken each of them? I am concerned about the need for construction at Don Bosco secondary school. Can the minister ensure the decision will come down so that they will know, because they still don’t know that they cannot construct before September?

Can the minister confirm or deny the rumour that she is shopping around to try to make a deal for one of the public schools, which can be substituted for the construction of the new extension that they and the separate school board have been requesting for these people?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the honourable member that I do not think it is possible to construct a school at this time of the variety suggested by any of the boards in Metropolitan Toronto for September 1980 and, indeed, these allocations are not for that period of time, as I suggested to the honourable member.

SARNIA LIGHT INDUSTRIAL PARK

Mr. Blundy: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch), I would like to ask the Premier a question. In view of the fact that the Chippewas of Sarnia have been attempting for the past two years to get gas service to their light industrial park, and in view of the fact that for the last six months I have been corresponding with the president of Union Gas and more recently with the Minister of Energy, will the Premier look into the possibility of assisting the Chippewas of Sarnia in getting gas service to the light industrial park, which happens to be right across the road from two chemical plants that are served by Union Gas?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would assume that any industry locating in that industrial park would not be of a branch plant variety because the member’s leader then would not agree to us helping in that sort of development --

Mr. Laughren: The Premier says there are no more branch plants.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, they could all be branch plants. Why does the member not talk to him and suggest that there is really no consensus over there on just what might be done?

Mr. Laughren: I thought there were no more left.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Have I touched a sensitive nerve over there?

Mr. Speaker: I think the question had to do with electrical hookups.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I think it actually had to do with gas, Mr. Speaker, about which the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) is an expert.

I will take it up with the Minister of Energy.

Mr. Kerrio: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: If the Premier would recall the promise that he and the Minister of Energy made in response to a question that I raised about piping gas everywhere we could to displace imported oil, is he going to keep that promise and see if he cannot expand the pipelines and get natural gas wherever we can to displace oil brought from the Middle East?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, for the majority of consumers in the province, the source of crude oil happens to be the great provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, not the Middle East -- that is the majority of consumers in Ontario including most of those who are resident in the great city of Niagara Falls. Their access is really --

Mr. Kerrio: Limited, because of inadequate pipelines.

Interjection.

Mr. Kerrio: We bring in 25 per cent with your help.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have to tell the member that the 25 per cent we bring in primarily goes east of the mythical line in the Ottawa Valley. They are about --

Mr. Kerrio: To the east coast, I understand that --

Hon. Mr. Davis: No. With great respect there are 600,000 Ontarians east of that particular line who in fact use imported crude. If the member would just check his facts carefully, he will find that to be the case.

However, I really do not quite understand. Mr. Speaker, the relationship between the first question and the second question. I will get an answer to the first question from the Minister of Energy for the honourable member as long as it does not include branch plants. No, we would be delighted to have those included. For the member for Niagara Falls, yes, we are enthusiastically supporting the substitution of natural gas for crude in any way we can.

MOTION

SUBCOMMITTEE SITTING

Hon. Mr. Gregory moved that the subcommittee of the standing committee on public accounts be authorized to meet in camera today following routine proceedings.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PARKING FACILITIES FOR THE HANDICAPPED ACT

Mr. Kennedy moved first reading of Bill 130,

An Act to provide Parking Facilities for Physically Handicapped Persons.

Motion agreed to.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, this bill is designed to give both permanently and temporarily physically disabled persons greater and more convenient parking access not only to provincial and municipal buildings and facilities, but also to all public parking areas. Not only are designed spaces to be clearly marked, as can now be arranged by municipal bylaw, but also permits will be available to any handicapped whether they themselves drive or are transported by others. Permits will be valid anywhere in Ontario.

I would urge the government to adopt this bill without delay, and I invite comment on it over the summer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is superfluous comment.

JUDICATURE AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Breaugh moved first reading of Bill 131,

An Act to amend the Judicature Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to provide for full access by news reporters to court records.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Philip moved first reading of Bill 132,

An Act to amend the Residential Tenancies Act, 1979.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Philip: The purpose of the bill is to amend the exemption provision of

part XI of the act, rent review, in order to eliminate the exemption for buildings occupied after January 1, 1976.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES AMENDMENT ACT

Ms. Bryden moved first reading of Bill 133,

An Act to amend the Residential Tenancies Act, 1979.

Motion agreed to.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the exemption provision in

part XI of the act, rent review, in order to eliminate the exemption for buildings operated or administered but not owned by the governments of Canada or Ontario or an agency thereof. It will bring under rent review buildings such as Main Square in Toronto which are privately owned but administered by or on behalf of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation or any other government agency,

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF OTTAWA-CARLETON AMENDMENT ACT

Ms. Gigantes, on behalf of Mr. Cassidy, moved first reading of Bill 134,

An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Act.

Motion agreed to.

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to amend the ward boundaries for election of public school trustees to the Ottawa Board of Education as requested by the board on March 26, 1980.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Philip moved first reading of Bill 135,

An Act to amend the Residential Tenancies Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide authority to the Residential Tenancy Commission to order a reduction in the rent charged by a landlord where the landlord’s financial costs are reduced as a result of lower interest rates.

ANSWER TO QUESTION ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Gregory: I would like to table the answer to question 219 standing on the Notice Paper. (See appendix, page 2964.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 48,

An Act to provide Property Tax Assistance for Pensioners in Ontario;

Bill 50,

An Act to provide Incentives for the Exploration of Mineral Resources in Ontario;

Bill 51,

An Act to amend the Small Business Development Corporations Act, 1979;

Bill 55,

An Act to amend the Income Tax Act;

Bill 60,

An Act to require the Registration of Non-resident Interests in Agricultural Land in Ontario;

Bill 69,

An Act to amend the District Municipality of Muskoka Act;

Bill 71,

An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act, 1977;

Bill 74,

An Act to amend the County of Oxford Act, 1974;

Bill 81,

An Act to amend certain Acts respecting Regional Municipalities.

FOREST FIRES

Hon. Mr. Bernier moved resolution 14:

That Mr. Speaker convey to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba the sincere thanks of the members of this House and the people of Ontario for the warm and generous hospitality of the people of Manitoba to the residents of northwestern Ontario who were evacuated during the recent forest fires.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would just elaborate with a few statistics. Most of the members realize that the forest fire situation this year has been the worst in Ontario. To date, there have been something like 934 fires this spring; more than 500 were in northwestern Ontario, and 43 are still active at this time.

About 811,000 acres have been burned to date, mostly in northwestern Ontario: 780,000 acres are still considered active but being held. Kenora 23 is the largest of the fires still burning and accounts for about 278,000 acres active right now but, again, being held. Red Lake 14 accounts for another 108,000 acres.

The total losses estimated for the forest fires, when we extend the timber loss over a period of 80 years and include some property damage and the estimated damage to the tourist industry -- this is a Ministry of Natural Resources guesstimate only -- are in excess of $640 million, The exact amount of personal losses, including property damage, have yet to be determined.

About 2,000 men were used in fighting the fires in northwestern Ontario alone. As many as 10 water bombers were used at one time during the height of the firefighting exercise, and up to 79 helicopters. This is a record in the province’s history. As many as 33 fixed-wing aircraft were also being used to fight the fires.

Nearly 5,000 people were evacuated in northwestern Ontario during the past few weeks. The evacuation from Red Lake, which saw 3,624 people evacuated to Winnipeg, Gimli, Rivers and Brandon, Manitoba, constituted the largest air evacuation in Canada’s history. Approximately 2,000 of these people were billeted in private homes right in the Winnipeg area.

It was interesting, during my visit to Gimli, Rivers and Brandon, to note the warmth that was being extended to those evacuees by the people of Manitoba. In fact, in Brandon I was warmly invited to join the evacuees at a barbecue that had been arranged for our evacuees by the Kinsmen Club of that particular community.

The city of Winnipeg today opened its heart; I have to say that. The social activities that normally go on in the St. James Civic Centre were severely disrupted to look after the evacuees from the Red Lake area. Also in Winnipeg, emergency offices were set up right in the legislative building. I was heartened to meet the Premier of Manitoba and members of his cabinet who met every day during that fire crisis, including on the weekends, to deal with the evacuation and to plan for evacuation in case the 16,000 people from Kenora would need to be moved to Winnipeg.

Even the Winnipeg pharmacists helped to fill prescriptions and supplied pills to those evacuees who had left their drugs behind. Many of the medical evacuees were extremely well looked after in the hospitals in Manitoba.

Truly, the people of Manitoba have lived up to their province’s slogan when they refer to it as “Friendly Manitoba.” I know that all members will join me in extending our very sincere thanks to the government and to the people of Manitoba.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, as a neighbour of the Minister of Northern Affairs, I am happy to stand in my place and support his resolution and to pass on my thanks to the government and people of Manitoba. In fact, what we have gone through -- and we do not always realize these things at the time -- is something extremely dramatic and certainly historic in the province.

We have been very fortunate in all these fires we have had this year that we have had no loss of life. I think it is because of the co-operation between all levels of government and provincial governments and the federal government that this has happened. and that the evacuation ran as smoothly as it did.

I have only third-hand information through my brother, who is a federal member. From the comments he has received from the people of Red Lake, they could not have been treated any better than if they had been taken into their own relatives’ homes. The Manitoba people are to be congratulated and thanked profusely and from the bottom of our hearts for the assistance they provided under very trying and very urgent timetables because of the possibility of Red Lake and other communities being burned.

I am extremely happy on behalf of my party and on behalf of myself, as a former resident of Manitoba when I went to university there, to support the resolution of the Minister of Northern Affairs.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and make support of the resolution unanimous. Those of us who live in northwestern Ontario are constantly aware of the threat of fire. We were made aware of it even more strongly than usual this year, very early in the fire season. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the fine work done by the ministry officials within this province and to the co-operation extended by other jurisdictions.

This was not an easy year because other jurisdictions, such as Alberta and Saskatchewan, had to use their equipment to fight their own forest fires. It is a mark of the awesomeness of a fire that it transcends political boundaries, whether they are political in a party sense, or in terms of provinces, and we have this exchange of equipment.

Surely the evacuation was one of the very finest peacetime evacuations. The hospitality shown by the people of Manitoba was touching for those who received it, but also it was touching for those of us who were not recipients directly, but only indirectly, because we are members of the area.

We should also pay a little tribute to the people in Geraldton, Nakina and Longlac who hosted the people from Fort Hope who had to be evacuated. Some of the special difficulties involving language were ironed out there.

All in all, I think the motion is appropriate. It is very appropriate that it be an expression from the Speaker of the House on behalf of all parties and all people in the province. It is also a fitting reminder to all of us that the fire season is not yet over. We would be glad to extend the hospitality we received to people in Manitoba should -- we hope not -- circumstances at some time in the future be reversed.

Resolution concurred in.

Mr. Speaker: I will be happy to convey those sentiments to my counterpart in Manitoba.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, since I made a relatively lengthy introduction when this bill was introduced in the House, I shall not make a statement at this time, but will await the opportunity to respond to concerns expressed.

Mr. Speaker: Would you like to move second reading?

Hon. Miss Stephenson moved second reading of Bill 82,

An Act to amend the Education Act, 1974.

Mr. Sweeney: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is the second time I almost got caught that way.

It is my understanding that there has been general agreement that this will go to committee and we will have an opportunity to deal with the specific elements of the legislation in greater detail. Therefore, other than monitoring a very few specific ideas, I will try to deal with the more general nature of the legislation.

3:40 p.m.

I would begin by pointing out to the minister that I, on behalf of my party, receive this legislation with very distinctly mixed feelings. In the first place we are very pleased to receive it. Second, we have some genuine concerns about what might flow from it and what perceptions we might be giving to people. Third, there are certain areas to which we will make some objections and request that amendments be accepted. With that general overview of mixed feelings, let me begin.

We are pleased because the legislation is finally before us. The minister will recall that the first intimation we had that such legislation would be coming in an official way, that is -- was in the February 1978 throne speech. Next we heard from the minister herself in December 1978, when she indicated she would be bringing forward special education legislation which would make some rather dramatic changes in the province. I believe that was the first time she used the term that it would become mandatory in the province. I understand that word has been somewhat softened in the intervening period.

Given the last three or four delays, we were beginning to wonder whether it was going to come through in this session. At least we have the opportunity to deal with it in second reading.

Speaking on behalf of my party, I am pleased at the two basic principles which this legislation enunciates. Those principles were very clearly spelled out in the minister’s own remarks on May 23, 1980, to which she has already alluded. Those principles are that every child in this province now has the automatic right to be admitted to a school and has the automatic right to expect that a program meeting his or her special needs will be prepared for him or her.

As an aside, my colleague the member for York Centre (Mr. Stong), back in 1976 and 1977, was the first one -- at least as long as I have been in this Legislature -- to bring forward a private member’s bill specifically calling for those two principles. For that reason there can be no doubt in the minister’s mind that the members of this party support the principle of this legislation; there is no question of that.

I am also pleased because for the first time specific provision will be made to allow separate school boards in this province to educate their own children who are mentally retarded or mentally handicapped.

For many years, and specifically going back to 1969 when the provision for responsibility for children also are mentally handicapped was given exclusively to the public school boards of this province, the trustees and the teachers of the separate school boards made it very clear they believed it was their responsibility to educate the children of their ratepayers who had this special need. I can assure the minister once again that we will give own wholehearted support to that principle.

I am pleased to note in the legislation that there is clear provision for the inclusion of parents on the advisory committee which will be set up as a result of this legislation -- for the inclusion of parents who are members of local associations that are affiliated with provincial associations. At some later time, probably in committee, I will try to get some assurance from the minister that other groups of parents who somehow do not quite fit that description might either be assisted to better fit it or might come under it in some other way.

But the general principle involved here, that parents -- particularly the parents who have children who will be most affected by this legislation -- will be represented on that advisory committee, is an important step forward.

The minister will realize that there are a number of school boards in the province which in an unofficial capacity, even though it is not required of them by legislation, already allow the parents of their students to participate in that kind of an advisory capacity.

I am pleased that the legislation makes very clear reference to the fact that special education will now be made available to all students who need it in their own language of instruction. Once again I am cognizant of the fact that there are many boards that already make this provision, but I do not have to advise the minister that there are a number of areas in this province where, because of their geographical location, children of either of the two official languages of instruction groups in this province do not have that provision made available to them. This legislation will now do that.

Among the parts of the legislation of which we are very definite supportive and pleased with is the statement in the minister’s opening statement of May 23 on the guaranteed long-term funding commitment. The minister and her predecessor (Mr. Wells) will recall that on numerous occasions I and other members of both opposition parties have frequently asked for some long-term funding commitment to programs like this. In each of those cases, we were advised that was extremely difficult for the government to do because it could never be sure of its own revenues.

I am pleased to note that the minister has heeded the requests of the teachers, trustees and administrative officials of the province who jointly approached her on this particular problem and has now made at least within her statement, a provision for a five-year funding commitment to carry this program out. I am sure the minister would expect there would be some objections as to the actual amounts of money involved. There might be some objections as to the procedures and the process by which it will be passed on to boards, but I can assure the minister there should be no objections as to the commitment itself over a long period of time.

Therefore, I would like to begin on the very supportive and positive note that there are many things in this legislation and in the minister’s opening statement that we can support very strongly.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: So it is downhill all the way from here.

Mr. Sweeney: No, not at all. I think the minister is going to find, generally speaking, that even when I raise objections they are going to be in as positive and as constructive a manner as I can possibly do so. I do not want to do anything whatsoever that will endanger this legislation. The only purpose of the comments that are to follow is to make the legislation even a little bit better and to clear up areas where I think some of the

definitions are not as good as they could be and where there are a couple of proposals in the legislation that I think they can be phrased in ways that will make them more productive and more effective.

I want the minister to be very aware of the fact that I am not being destructively critical in the words that will follow. Rather, I hope that all three parties in this Legislature can jointly emerge with a piece of legislation that will truly be the finest piece of special education legislation that there will be anywhere on the continent of North America.

I would like to move now on to a slightly different point, namely, to share with the minister some few concerns I have. These are mainly concerns of perception that we as legislators have to be at least conscious of in terms of what we say and what we do in this assembly and how it is perceived outside of the assembly.

The first one I want to deal with is the raising of expectations, which I sense already are beginning to move out of this assembly and into the minds of many parents, particularly those parents of children with special needs. We have to be very careful to recognize -- and this view was put forward perhaps more strongly than even I can do it by members of the provincial trustees’ association -- that in times past and in issues past the school boards of this province have been perceived to have been given a mandate and a level of responsibility which they could not under human terms possibly fulfil to the level that was expected of them.

3:50 p.m.

The decade of the 1970s is probably the clearest period of time when that became so very clear. As a result of that, the credibility of the school system of this province was seriously damaged. We were telling people: “If you give us enough money, if you give us enough people, if you give enough buildings, we can solve all the problems that exist in this province; we can solve the economic problems and we can solve the social problems and we can solve the morality problems.” That was foolish.

On and on it goes, and the minister and I both know that was a foolish level of expectation to have ever been suggested in the first place. It may not have even been suggested as clearly as that, but surely the minister is aware that was the perception out there.

I have the same concern with this kind of legislation. I think the minister, and everyone who speaks to this legislation, has to be very clear in pointing out that it does have limitations. Any legislation we will bring forward will have limitations, because we are dealing in human terms; we are not dealing with robots, or computers, or machines.

One of the first concerns I have in this area is a perception that somehow we can identify all the problems. When we speak in terms of early identification, which becomes the responsibility of all boards under this legislation, let us be very sure that we understand that even though the very best possible job will he done that we are capable of doing, or that our teachers are capable of doing, or our administrators are capable of doing, we are not going to identify every single problem of every child.

A couple of the parents’ associations which have submitted briefs to the minister have made this very clear in particular: We will not always identify them early. With the best will in the world and the best techniques in the world and the best materials in the world, we are not going to be able to spot all the problems.

Therefore, two or three years down the line, when we do find out that there is some child in this province who wasn’t identified, or who wasn’t identified early, we want to be very sure the people are aware of the fact that does not necessarily mean this legislation is inadequate or did not do its job.

We have to be very sure we understand that we simply do not have the human capabilities to do it. I do not know of anyone who has. If the minister can share with me some wonder woman or wonder man she knows about, I would certainly be pleased to know of them. It is not my perception or my experience that the teachers, the trustees and the administrators of this province have this wonderful magical skill that they can always find the problem that exists.

The second part of that expectation is that all the problems we have identified can be solved -- and in the schools. I think that is another perception we have to clear out of the way. We are going to find that there are some problems; but we are going to find also that the nature of those problems, whether they be a matter of heredity, whether they be a matter of family concerns, whether they be a matter of social concerns, whatever they may be, will mean there will be certain aspects of those problems that the school by itself cannot solve. Here perhaps is my greatest concern, that the school will somehow be perceived as that place where all those problems get solved.

I am not suggesting, by the way, and I hope I did not indicate this at the beginning, that the minister is saying this. All I am saying is that I sense it is my responsibility, and I rather feel that perhaps the minister shares this, that it is our responsibility to make very sure we understand these limitations.

Finally, there is considerable reference in the legislation to children who are retarded, who have a special kind of mental handicap. I think we have to be especially careful here, when we are talking to the parents of these children, that once again we do not unduly raise their expectations. I say that in the light of the recognition that we have been able to assist retarded children in this province to raise their level of performance far beyond what I, as one parent and as one legislator, would have thought possible 10 or 15 years ago.

We are beginning to learn that many of the retarded youngsters of this province who are in our schools and who are in various developmental centres in this province now have demonstrated to us that their capabilities are far greater than we thought they were. That is also being demonstrated when we look at what our retarded adults are doing. I am clearly cognizant of that, and I would be the last one to say that we should put any defined limits on what we expect our retarded people to be able to do. I recognize that.

But, at the same time, we also have to be careful in what we say not to suggest to parents in particular that their retarded children are going to be able to go far beyond where they are going at the present time, or that somehow by the introduction of this legislation and by the processes that will be put into motion, we are going to solve problems we are incapable of solving. Therefore, that whole area is of concern to me. I repeat that I am not suggesting the minister has made these kinds of promises.

Secondly -- this is something I have discussed with the minister a couple of times in the past -- now that we specifically have in legislation the requirement that boards do early identification, I would want to have some protection built in. I was going to use the word “assurance,” but I know that is not possible. Some protection should be built in so that the danger of early labelling will be reduced to a minimum. Having spoken to a number of special education teachers in various parts of this province, they have advised me that simply to say it is not going to be done is not enough. Once again, with the best will in the world, these things just tend to happen.

I would hope we would be aware of the dangers of early labelling, From my own experience I can say that these labels tend to stick with young people long past the time when they have any application whatsoever, if they ever had. Therefore, I would like some kind of provision built into the legislation. Quite frankly, at this time I do not know how, but at least in the discussion stage in committee we can explore that to some depth and see whether any kind of wording can be put in there. At this point all I am doing is raising it as a continuing issue of concern.

Given that it is now going to be part of legislation rather than a memorandum coming out of the minister’s office, it is more important we give it that kind of attention.

My concerns continue to the gifted of the province. Once again the minister will recall, as will her predecessor, every year we have a discussion about the provisions made for the particularly gifted in Ontario. I know it is the intention of the legislation, of the ministry and of the government, that the gifted will be included under the general headings of exceptionality, of special education and of children with special education needs. I understand that.

As I talk to many other people outside the Legislature, I cannot help but get the sense the more likely practice will be that they will continue to receive short shrift. Let me put it in very precise terms. It is my understanding that in the province right now there have already been identified, or are in the process of being identified, something in the neighbourhood of 80,000 to 100,000 children who have special learning needs above and beyond any who could be described as gifted.

It is a sense I have, with the amount of time available to us, with the number of trained teachers we have, with the amount of money available, that it will simply all be used up in dealing with those children who have special learning needs or learning disabilities. Therefore, the gifted will simply be put at the end of the list once more.

It is also my understanding that, although we have a considerable number of trained teachers in Ontario with special skills to deal with those who have learning disabilities, we have very few teachers in the province who are trained in any way or who have the specific skills required to deal with the gifted. I do not need to tell the minister that she can go into almost any school in Ontario and hear from the teachers themselves: “There are children in the schools who are gifted, but we simply don’t know what to do with them. We don’t have the human resources on our staff to enable us to give those children what they really need.”

Like most other people in our society, I recognize the tremendous contribution these gifted young people in our schools today can make to our province. With the kinds of economic and social problems facing our society, we desperately need the intellectual and moral resources these gifted young people can bring to bear on possible solutions to those problems.

4 p.m.

I recognize that we are going to have to find some way to identify more clearly those young people in our province who are truly gifted. We are going to have to have a better definition of them. We are going to have to have identification models that are able to help us pick them out more precisely. We are going to have to have teachers in the province who truly do have the skills, and to have them in sufficient numbers, to help these gifted children.

I can only say, as so many others have said before me, that the wastage, in human terms, caused by our not identifying and not meeting the needs of these gifted children is probably one of the greatest lacks of most educational systems in North America, not just this one in Ontario.

I would want somehow to find a way to find a place in this legislation to deal specifically with that, because I sense that we are going to say, “Yes, they are covered,” and “Yes, their needs should be met,” but five years from now we are going to discover that very little has been done.

I am a little concerned about the timing, or at least I was a little bit more concerned before I found out that we would be going to committee. I want to include a concern that was expressed to me by representatives of a number of school boards; I am sure the minister herself received these comments back in February 1979 when she sent out her proposed legislation and indicated to the members of the school boards that they had only two weeks in which to make a response. I noticed on the back page of the material which the minister provided to us a statement to the effect that many of the briefs came in after the deadline.

I put that in context only because I again sensed that there was this long wait to get the actual legislation but, once it arrived, there seemed to be almost an obscene rush, somehow to push it through. I am quite conscious of the fact that, besides the pilot boards which have been identified, there may be some school boards in this province which would want to take advantage of some of this legislation more quickly than others, and that the minister would like to have something in place for September 1980.

It would appear now that it is not going to be possible. But I want to be very clear that I would consider myself as one of those who is quite prepared to hold up this legislation for a little while longer, given the long period of time we have waited for it and its dramatic importance. I believe the minister himself used the term “an historic occasion,” and said that it is part of the evolutionary process that has gone on for more than 100 years.

Mr. Conway: If Bette said that “himself,” it is indeed historic.

Mr. Sweeney: Oh, very well; I thank my colleague the member for Renfrew North.

I simply want to put it in that context. I think I have indicated to the minister on more than one occasion that I will not be a party to undue hastening of this legislation, because I agree with the minister; it is of historic significance, and it is going to make some major changes in this province. Using the minister’s own figure, possibly up to 100,000 students, who are not receiving the kind of attention that they should be getting at the present time, could benefit from this legislation. Therefore, I think it is well worth our while to take that little bit of extra time and to do it right, or at least to do it to the best of our human ability at this particular time.

My next concern -- and this again is not a new one -- is the adequacy of the provision for teacher training. I recognize the fact that the minister has provided a five-year phase-in period. I recognize that there are quite a number of teachers in the province right now who hold at least some partial training, and I am as hopeful as the minister is that during the next five years we will be able to catch up to the need.

However, as I speak to various representatives from the teachers’ and trustees’ associations, I cannot help but sense that there will be a shortage of trained, properly skilled personnel to deal with this growing and, now, this more specific, mandated need. I would hope that in her remarks today, or if we get an opportunity to discuss this issue during the committee hearings, the minister will draw to our attention exactly what provisions are in place or are about to be put in place to meet this need.

I have to question the minister’s statistics when she says there are X thousands of teachers in this province who hold a special education certificate. I happen to know that very many of those teachers hold certificates which do not qualify them to deal with the kinds of needs and programs that are going to emerge from this legislation. They may have taken one or two courses in special education at one time or another, but I am too familiar with the content of many of those courses.

I am also too familiar with a large number of teachers who have come back and said to me -- even five or 10 years ago when they took these courses -- that the material and the instruction they received, the skills they were supposed to acquire, simply were not sufficient even at that time.

Using those large statistical figures simply is not enough. We have to have much more precise data. I would hope, if it has not already been begun, the minister would very soon be getting somebody within her ministry to go back and look at those figures and to assure herself and the teachers and parents of this province that the need in that area will be met.

Finally, under concerns, I want to briefly touch on the whole funding mechanism. I complimented the minister for preparing, on behalf of the government, to make that five-year funding commitment. I was quite pleased to note that she even went a step further and said it would be in constant 1980 dollars. That is recognition of the growing inflationary factor that has to be built into the funding of education in this province.

I am not sure -- and I would like the minister to explain it at this time or in the committee stage -- about the extent of local school board involvement. For example, the minister is saying that over the next five years the provincial government is going to commit $75 million to the increased special education programs. Given the roughly 50-50 split between provincial and local sharing of educational costs, does that also mean that over the next five years local school boards are going to have to find an additional $75 million as well? Does it mean that?

Or does it mean that the provincial ministry, for the next five years, is going to totally fund the needs as it sees them arising over the next five years? I would like that clarified.

Second, I recognized in the minister’s speech of May 23 the reference that what will probably happen by 1985 is that the entire funding mechanism will be folded into the grant system. It will become part of the overall grant system rather than being a specifically labelled add-on to the grant system. I would like to have the minister explain to me -- and I am sure there are many trustees in the province who would also like to know -- whether the local boards will be required at that point to take on additional funding responsibilities.

There have been situations in the past in which the school boards of the province have had the sense -- whether the minister agrees or not -- that they have been drawn into special programs of many different kinds, new initiatives by the provincial ministry, and then a few years down the road they were left holding the bag to fund themselves.

The minister knows as well as I do that is a concern the trustees have. If that is the perception they have, I think it is incumbent upon the minister and her government at least to recognize the concern and, to the best of her ability, to speak to it as early as possible. The willingness and the energy with which local school boards will move into this could be limited to a certain extent by the fact that they may have some hesitation with respect to future funding commitments. All I am asking at this time is that the minister recognize that perception and speak to it as far as she possibly can.

4:10 p.m.

That concludes the so-called concerns side of my comments. I want to move into another area now to discuss some very specific objections I have to the way in which the legislation is worded at the present time. First and foremost, I want to come to the heart of what I think this a major problem with this legislation, namely, the wording of

section 34, which includes the exclusion principle. I would put the minister on notice that that is one area in which I fully intend to bring in an amendment. I do not believe there should be anywhere in this legislation an exclusion principle.

As we are speaking about the principle of the legislation, I feel it most incumbent upon me to say that as clearly and as early as I possibly can. What I believe that particular

section should say is that it is the responsibility of the board to provide services, not to exclude children, from within its own jurisdiction or to purchase services from some other jurisdiction, whether it be from a public board or an independent board in Canada or the United States or wherever.

When I look at the wording of

section 34 in this bill and when I look at the wording of

section 34 in the existing legislation, I find there is no fundamental change. There are two small changes I recognize. One of them is that exclusion can be done not solely for physical handicaps but for a combination of mental and physical handicaps. I also recognize the change which says that, if the board excludes, it has the responsibility to assist the parent to locate. That is not much of a change, I can tell the minister.

At the very heart and soul of this legislation we are allowing the same kind of exclusion we already have in existing legislation. I will agree that the fact that the mental and physical are put together is an important step and that the minister is going to make it necessary for school boards to assist a parent to locate is also an important addition.

I would suspect, however, that if the minister were to examine the practices of many boards in this province, she would find they are already doing those things anyway. The fact that it is now going to be mandated strengthens it. That is true. But it does not get at the heart and the soul of the legislation.

As a matter of fact, one of the heads of one of the children’s services put it best. She may have said it to the minister as well. If I can paraphrase what she said, she said if all we were given were the minister’s remarks on May 23 we would have been much happier than we were when we got the bill itself. The minister’s remarks very clearly said two things. First, they said that we are now going to make provision for all students; in other words, there will be no exceptions. Second, the minister’s statement said that all taxpayers in this province have the right to have their children supported and funded when they have special needs.

Those were the two key ingredients of what we understood this legislation was going to do, but the legislation does not say that. The legislation does not say that all children in this province who have handicaps and who have special needs are going to be dealt with.

If this is the minister’s intention and if the legislation can be reworded to make it very sure that is what will happen, then that is fine. I need not remind the minister of the number of times that legislation has been put forward by this assembly and has been shot down by the courts. As a matter of fact, a couple of years ago something like four pieces of legislation were shot down by the courts in about three or four months. What the courts said in each case was: “We cannot be concerned with your intentions.

All we can deal with is the wording of your legislation.” And those judges of the Supreme Court said: “The wording of the legislation means this. In law this is what it means. It does not mean what you say it is intended to be.” That is what we are concerned about here.

The least of my objection to this bill is that we cannot use, we should not use, and I would strongly urge through an amendment that we do not use that word “exclude”; that we say, “provide” -- within their own jurisdiction or provide somewhere else, because I can well understand there are some school boards in this province which, because of geographical location or resources that are available in their general area, may not in their own area and of themselves he able to provide that need.

I accent that premise. I would like to hope there will be fewer and fewer boards all the time in that situation. Nevertheless, I accept the premise that they are not going to be able to provide it locally, and they may have to get it somewhere else. But I am not prepared and will not be prepared to allow them to exclude; to allow them, in turn, to hand the problem over to someone else so that, from then on, their only responsibility is to check once a year to see how it is going. Checking once a year to see how it is going does not mean that anything is going to happen.

I am quite sure it is the minister’s intention that something will happen, but all I can say to her is that this is one professional educator who can see a loophole which you can drive a truck through. I do not think that is the minister’s intention, which is why I think it is so vitally important that we must change it.

Let us go on to what the legislation actually says: “assist to locate.” That does not say the board is responsible to ensure that a program is made available. That could just as easily be interpreted to mean that the board will say: “Okay, we happen to know these five schools that have a program which could meet your child’s needs. We will give you the name of the headmaster or the principal, their phone number or address, and you go. We have assisted you to locate.” The parent and the child may never actually get into the program. What does the word “assist” mean? I do not know what it means. It is open to numerous

interpretations. What does “locate” mean?

The thing I find most surprising is that there are officials within the ministry who, from a practical implementation point of view, would have allowed this to get through. Second, I am quite surprised that the minister, as a politician, would not have immediately recognized the problems inherent in here.

For example, it is my understanding that the existing legislation, and I just checked it again a couple of days ago, only permits a publicly funded school board to purchase services from another publicly funded school board. Yet through the many discussions we have had, the many questions that have been raised regarding the provision of educational opportunities for children with severe learning disabilities, we have found in many cases that they are not available in another publicly funded school board.

In a large number of these cases, and I would even go so far -- and I am open to being corrected if I am wrong -- as to suggest in the majority of cases we have discussed and of which the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Norton) has spoken, and the cases that I took before the appeal board for vocational rehabilitation, in none of those cases was there a publicly funded school board in this province that could provide the program that child needed.

Therefore, if the local board is responsible to assist the parent to locate, does that also mean the board is responsible to fund it? It does not say that.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: There is an important phrase there that you have forgotten: “unable to profit by.”

Mr. Sweeney: In that board. That is what it says. This is such an important principle that I am quite willing to hear the minister’s comments on it, because I think I made it very clear that it is my major objection to the legislation as drafted at the present time. But certainly my

interpretation, and the

interpretation of everyone I have questioned on it, including professional educators, psychiatrists and psychologists, is that it is the availability of program in that board’s jurisdiction by which that child is able to profit. That is the

interpretation.

4:20 p.m.

As a matter of fact, I have asked two lawyers who deal almost exclusively in children’s affairs, and they both said, “Yes, that is the way I would interpret it as well.” The legislation, as I understand it, is not saying that child is not able to profit by any instruction anywhere. I do not see how one could possibly interpret it that way. I do not see how that could possibly be the

interpretation.

If that is what the minister means, then she had better word it that way, because that is not the way it has been interpreted by most other people to whom I have spoken. As a matter of fact, I have not spoken to anyone else who has given me that kind of an

interpretation. Therefore, perhaps the minister can understand my concern.

I have to come back to the question I asked last, which is: If the board cannot provide the needed program itself, and it has to assist a parent in locating a program some place, dues that assisting to locate mean that the board actually has to be assured that the child is in another program? It may be that what we need is a definition for the word “locate.” Does “locate” mean the board has to carry through its assistance to the point in time when that child is in another program, and not simply give somebody a name or an address and location? I hope it does not mean that, but that is one

interpretation.

I do not think it is a good idea, quite frankly, to have the Ministry of Education funding it in this case. I think the local board should fund it, and I think they should be given sufficient funds to do it. That is their responsibility, and I agree with the minister when she would rather use the word “responsibility” than “mandatory.” I think it is a more powerful word, a more morally binding word, but it says to me that they should also be responsible for the funding aspect of it and that the parents of children who have those kinds of needs should not be responsible.

I am trying to suggest to the minister that there is going to have to be a change in other parts of the Education Act which will allow a board to buy services from a board that is not publicly funded, whether that board be here in Ontario or outside Ontario. As the minister knows, that is not possible at the present time.

My second major objection is with respect to the provision for parental appeal. I would draw to the minister’s attention that the legislation as worded is almost identical -- in fact, I think it is identical -- to the present act in terms of the provision for parental appeal. The legislation reads something to the effect that, if a principal determines that the child is not able to profit, he can make it known to the board. If the parent feels the child is not able to profit, the parent or guardian can make it known to the board. That is how the legislation now reads.

Need I tell the minister that there are many cases across this province right now where parents -- again, I can use the specific ones, and they are

chapter and verse -- have had to come before the vocational rehabilitation board? In every case, the argument they have used was that the board was saying: “We have a program in place to meet that child’s needs.” The parents said: “No, you haven’t. The needs of my child are not being met by that particular program. The needs of my child are such that they have to be met someplace else.”

I do not think I have to tell the minister that the evidence that the needs of those children were met in other locations now is fact. It is no longer a perception; it is fact. I can give the minister three or four cases from my own constituency alone, and I am sure she can get them from almost every other member in this House.

There is no provision in this legislation to give parents a more powerful, productive or effective appeal mechanism than what they have at the present time. The present system is not working. The minister does not have to take my word for that. She can ask those parents themselves, and they will tell her over and over again. So we have to build that in.

I would require in this legislation some descriptive adjective with respect to the adequacy or quality of the special education that is going to be offered. Simply to say we are going to offer special education is not enough.

I would remind the minister, if it is necessary to do so, that on October 25, 1979, over the signature of Dr. Bergen, a number of proposals in terms of wording legislation were prepared. On page six of appendix (a), with regard to a suggested change in paragraph 6a of

section 146, the recommendation was that “adequate” special education programs and services be made available. That is not in the legislation. It would seem to me we need a word like that. I can appreciate there may have been reasons why the minister, the officials and the government did not like the word “adequate.” I can accept that, but something else must be put in its place -- some word or description that says it is not enough just to have special education; it must be of a particular quality. If the minister does not like the word “adequate,” then she can put something else in. But there has to be something in there.

I want to come back to a point I was raising earlier in terms of a real concern. That is the minister’s reference, in her opening statement, to the needs of all students in Ontario being met. Yet I notice she refers in her legislation to resident students. Basically the objection I want to raise -- which I am sure has already been raised by a number of others -- is that there are a number of potential students who would not necessarily fit under the definition or designation “resident.”

For example, there are those students -- whether the minister wants to call them children or students is a matter of semantics, and I have to put it that way -- who do not come under the direct jurisdiction residency requirements of a board; for example, students who are in various institutions around the province. To what extent -- perhaps I am asking a question as well as making an objection -- does this legislation speak to them at all? If it does not, how are their special needs going to be met?

It was certainly my understanding -- and the way anyone would interpret the words in the minister’s opening statement -- that the needs of all special kids in this province were going to be met regardless of where they were.

As was brought to my attention, what about the kids who have dropped out of school for any number of reasons or, if they did not drop out, who were eased out in some unofficial way? The minister knows, as well as I do, that is happening across this province. How many times it is happening, I do not know, but it is happening. Do they still come under the jurisdiction of resident students? There is a difference of opinion, legally as well as professionally, as to whether they do. I think the minister should speak to that.

Finally, under this general heading, I want to raise some concerns about secondary school students. I do not see anything in the legislation that in any way speaks specifically to secondary school students, and I think it is necessary. The minister is probably as aware as I am that at the present time the needs of nearly all special education students at the secondary level are being met in vocational schools. That is clearly not satisfactory.

I have talked to numerous secondary school people -- principals, vice-principals, guidance people, special education people, vocational school people -- and they all say to me that if, when we are finished, the secondary school students of this province are still going to continue to have their needs met only in the vocational schools, it is not good enough and there will be no significant change.

4:30 p.m.

Therefore, I would like to see somewhere in the legislation -- and if the minister is not prepared to bring it forward, I can advise her that it is my intention to do so -- a particular and very specific reference to the needs of secondary school students.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is inherent in it.

Mr. Sweeney: Okay. Let us talk to it in a more specific way rather than in just an inherent way. Once again, the feeling is that it is not good enough. In the present practice across this province, the needs of elementary school students are met in a much more diverse, individual and specific way than those of secondary school students. That is what is happening in the province right now, and there is nothing to suggest under this legislation that things are going to change. Let us spend a little bit more time on that.

I want to move on to a couple of factors dealing with the wording in this legislation. It is not my intent to try to circumvent the clause-by-clause study of the bill at a later date, but if we are dealing with the principle of the legislation there are three or four references in here that I think clearly speak to that principle and I would hope that the minister might find some way to change them between now and when we discuss it again.

The very first one is on page one,

section 20a, which deals with the definition of an exceptional pupil. I would draw the minister’s attention to the proposed legislative wording that was sent out to the school boards of this province on February 14, 1978, in which the term “exceptional pupil” was defined. The distinctive difference between what the minister proposed and what is in the legislation are these words, “considered to be suited.” I do not think I need point out to the minister that this leaves a very wide gap between what will he done and what may not be done.

I would have to say to the minister that, if I have the choice between the wording in the legislation right now and the wording that she proposed on February 14, 1978, I will take the latter one. I think the wording in the proposal was a better wording. It was tighter and clearer and there was less opportunity for the needs of students not to be met. I am genuinely concerned about those particular words. Of course, that ties in with the whole question of the parental appeal which I raised before.

In the very next paragraph special education programs are mentioned. The words that concern me are, “or is designed to meet.” I guess the fairly obvious question is, why do we need those words at all? It seems to me that the wording without that phrase means an instructional program that meets the needs of an exceptional child. That is what should be there if the minister is saying the board has to do