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

December 16, 1983

32nd Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

BY-ELECTION IN STORMONT, DUNDAS AND GLENGARRY

SENIOR CITIZENS' BENEFITS

WATER POLLUTION CONTROL

COMMUNITY JUSTICE WEEK

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES LEGISLATION

TRIBUTE TO SECURITY OFFICER

ORAL QUESTIONS

PREBUDGET STATEMENT

WHITE FARM EQUIPMENT CANADA LTD.

TRUST COMPANIES

CHILD ABUSE

DELAY IN COMPLETION OF HOMES

REBATES FROM ILLEGAL RENTS

HOSPITAL ADMITTANCE DELAYS

AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTION

HOSPITAL ADMITTANCE DELAYS

STATUS OF AGRICULTURE INSPECTORS

RESPONSES BY MINISTERS

PETITIONS

TOXIC WASTE DISPOSAL

NURSING HOME LAYOFFS

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

HOUSE SITTING

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

LIMITATIONS ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MALTON MEMORIAL RECREATION ASSOCIATION ACT

CITY OF NORTH YORK ACT

TECO MINES AND OILS LIMITED ACT

CITY OF OWEN SOUND ACT

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

STATUS OF BILL

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIPS

STATUS OF REPORTS

BARRIE-VESPRA ANNEXATION ACT (CONCLUDED)

RELEASE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, PROVINCIAL SECRETARIAT FOR JUSTICE

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY (CONTINUED)

BUDGET DEBATE (CONCLUDED)

SUPPLY ACT

MOTION

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES AND RESPONSE TO PETITION

ROYAL ASSENT

PROROGATION SPEECH

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

BY-ELECTION IN STORMONT, DUNDAS AND GLENGARRY

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think it is essential that I report to the House on a matter of great significance and public importance that occurred in Ontario yesterday; an event that, glancing at one of the morning newspapers, in that I do not get the other one, I found buried on roughly page 12, because we get the early edition.

I know that if the result had been somewhat different it might have found its way to page 1, where I did read the headline -- and I never quarrel with headlines, because reporters do not write the headlines -- that the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) found an intriguing way, apparently, of spending money on winter works that would reduce the deficit. Mind you, I then read the headline a little more carefully and discovered that he was going to raise taxes. Now, I sat here and listened yesterday. The New Democrats did not listen yesterday, but I listened and I never heard him say that. However, I saw that other story on the back pages of that great paper.

I do report, because it is significant, that after nearly three years in the tenure of this government -- three years that have not been easy in the economic life of this province, three years when there have been opportunities for the opposition parties to establish their positions and their points of view in the minds of the public, under a new leader in both instances -- the voters in a very important part of this province had an opportunity to assess their judgement, with objectivity and in good weather.

I was intrigued, because it was reported to me that one of the rationales from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) was that we did so well because the weather was good. I cannot understand how anyone in a democracy would want to have poor weather to limit the vote, to limit the opportunity of people to express their point of view.

I heard the rationale that the New Democratic Party vote collapsed. That vote did collapse, but if that is the reason they think the Tories did so well I have to say to the Leader of the Opposition that has to be the largest figment of his imagination in recent history.

I was spending a very quiet evening in my constituency last night, a very quiet evening indeed, doing those things that a local member must do. But even in Brampton I heard the bleating of the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye) and the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) suggesting that it was the cost of the campaign. Even the Leader of the Opposition suggested that. The Leader of the Opposition can send any analysts in. We had trouble matching dollar for dollar the money the Liberal Party of Ontario spent in that by-election, and he should not try to kid anyone that this was not the case.

I was in that great representative area of Winchester not too many days ago and I spoke to that group. I did not talk about personalities in that sense, but I did talk about, shall we say, integrity in the political process. I talked about the Liberal campaign, which for two weeks had been suggesting to the people of that great riding that we had some scheme whereby taxes would be raised by an average of $100 a household.

I said to those great people in Winchester, without equivocation -- which is difficult for me -- without fear of contradiction and without any convolution, that this would not be the case. The Leader of the Opposition travelled the length and the breadth of that constituency the day after, suggesting the Premier had not been informed and we were going to raise taxes. I would say the people in that constituency made their judgement as to whom they believe.

I have been sitting patiently in this House listening to the Hamlet from Renfrew North --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No. It said "omelette" here, not "Hamlet."

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I said "Hamlet," not "omelette" -- although they did lay an egg in that riding last night.

I listened to and I read his protests about the visit of the cardinal to our dinner. I did not see any of the Liberal members who were there as guests of who knows who -- and I know who -- walk out of the dinner the other night when that same distinguished individual was a guest at the Liberal fund-raising dinner. I did not see any of them leave on television.

What is important to the public of this province is that in spite of all of those pressures, in spite of all those campaigns and in spite of the suggestions in this House that we were neglecting eastern Ontario for a multitude of reasons, I just want to tell members a few facts.

The Progressive Conservative Party won in 1977 with 49 per cent of the popular vote. The Progressive Conservative Party won in 1981 with 55 per cent of the popular vote. The Progressive Conservative Party won yesterday in that great historic area of Ontario with a very distinguished Ontarian-Canadian by 58 per cent of the popular vote.

10:10 a.m.

In spite of the pundits who say that PCs wonder whether tradition will hold, or the pundit from the Toronto Star who spent a day or so talking to who knows who that it was going to be the closest by-election in the history of that constituency, I hope they now understand that they have to understand the people that I understand in that constituency.

I now introduce the member whom we have elected -- I know he will be warmly received by all members -- the next member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, a great Canadian, Noble Villeneuve.

[Applause]

Mr. T. P. Reid: After listening to that, he may want to resign.

Hon. Mr. Davis: After yesterday, the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) may want to walk across the floor of the House. What is more, I am suspicious he will not be alone.

As well, Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce his very charming wife, Elaine, who probably got more votes for Noble than he got for himself, as Cathy does for me in the great riding of Brampton.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, although it is difficult to tell from the remarks of the Premier (Mr. Davis), I assume he was pleased with the outcome of the by-election.

On behalf of my colleagues, may I issue our congratulations to the new member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. I am sure he would be the first to admit that he has come to this House to fill very large shoes. It was a well-fought campaign. I congratulate him. I congratulate our candidate, of whom I was very proud, on the vigorous campaign that was fought on behalf of our party.

As Mr. Villeneuve has embarked on his first day watching this Legislature, soon to be part of it, I hope he is not too turned off by the process so far, because there is so much left to do for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. I am sure he will be an able representative of that great area in this province. I offer him my congratulations.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has learned, as we all have, that graciousness in victory is extremely important. There was a quality to the speech today which I must say I did not hear upon the election of the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen) a little while ago and upon my own election just a short year ago.

It was John Kennedy who said, "If you do not know how to lose, then you do not deserve to win." New Democrats in eastern Ontario have had a long history of learning how to lose.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You defeated yourself yesterday.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You could carry it too far.

Mr. T. P. Reid: They are getting better at it all the time.

Mr. Rae: We are getting a little too good at that. Nevertheless, I do want to say, first of all, to Mr. Villeneuve and to his family that we look forward to him joining us here. I want to offer him my personal congratulations and congratulations on the part of all of us who are part of this somewhat crazy process known as political life.

I also want to congratulate him on the way in which he conducted himself in the election. I was there a number of times, though I must say the results do not necessarily reflect that. Perhaps if I had gone more often it would have been even worse, I do not know.

What I do want to say is that I want to pay tribute as well to our own candidate in the riding, Mr. Derstroff, who in my view conducted himself with great distinction. I simply want to say that we look forward very much to this process continuing. I do not know how much longer this House will be in session. One hears all sorts of rumours with respect to the future plans of the Premier.

All I can say to the new member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry is that he is welcome to be one of all of us here in this chamber on a nonpartisan basis. It was in a nonpartisan mood that the Premier struck with such grace and tone today. There was really an element of making everyone feel equally involved in the welcoming of the member. He outdid himself today in the nonpartisan spirit of his remarks.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It is Christmas.

Mr. Rae: It is a Christmassy holiday mood which has so aptly characterized the arrival of a new member in this chamber. In that same spirit I want to welcome the new member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. I only wish we had had exactly the same kind of welcome for the member for Hamilton West when he so successfully succeeded the late departed Liberal leader, Mr. Stuart Smith.

SENIOR CITIZENS' BENEFITS

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to report to the honourable members on my ministry's efforts to ensure that Ontario's senior citizens receive their property and sales tax benefits in time for Christmas.

The members will recall my earlier statements concerning the commencement of the property and sales tax grant cycles earlier this fall. Alongside the simplification of the property tax grant application form and various improvements to our processing operations, members will also recall I made particular reference to the enhancement of our capacity directly to assist MPPs' constituency offices to deal with inquiries and problems.

There is no doubt these improvements have contributed significantly to a very successful fall payments campaign for both grants. For example, we have now cleared 99.4 per cent of the property grant applications we have received, which is over 37,000 more than at this point last year. At the same time, the great majority of those applications still on hand comprise simple deficiencies awaiting replies from seniors and newly received applications from late filers or people who have just turned 65 years of age. Altogether, to date we have mailed more than 563,000 property tax grants for a total value of $139 million, as well as more than 909,000 sales tax grants totalling $45 million.

In reporting on this progress, I wish to inform members that we will be writing shortly to report to their constituency offices on the program in overall terms and of our management of their inquiries in detail; and most important, to thank them personally for their excellent co-operation. Their response was most encouraging and was particularly important in view of the fact there was no paid advertising for the program this fall.

Since early September we have cleared more than 93 per cent of members' inquiries, while 83 per cent of the 76 outstanding ones have been received within the past week. The average time taken to resolve these inquiries has been only 3.2 days, while members' offices are also informed within five days as to why any inquiry will take longer to resolve. I want to take this opportunity to express publicly our great appreciation for the support we have received from the constituency offices and to acknowledge their contribution to the results I have just described.

Finally, I am pleased to report that our mini-campaign for paying property tax grants to seniors who became 65 in the second half of 1983 is running ahead of schedule. More than 12,000 applications were mailed on November 14 to seniors who turned 65 in July, August and September, while a further 6,800 were mailed at the beginning of this week to seniors with October and November birth dates. These new applications are being turned around well within our target of 10 working days. In fact, more than 75 per cent of the November 14 mailing has already been received and paid.

Mr. Speaker: Just before proceeding, I wonder if we may have the co-operation of all honourable members in restricting their private conversations.

Mr. Sweeney: You are looking at the wrong side, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I thought I was looking at the right side.

10:20 a.m.

WATER POLLUTION CONTROL

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report to honourable members on several important initiatives which will contribute significantly to the protection of the environment in our province.

Funding in excess of $17 million is being provided for high-priority environmental projects in Niagara Falls, Sudbury and Timmins. Of this total, my ministry has already disbursed $4.4 million towards a water project in Timmins and $2.2 million for improvements to sewer and water facilities in Sudbury. We will also provide $2.2 million for the upgrading of the water pollution control plant in the great city of Niagara Falls.

Earlier this week I signed an agreement on behalf of the province covering additional funds for these communities under the special recovery capital project program which is administered by Environment Canada. This agreement provides up to an extra $3 million for the Timmins project, $2.5 million for Sudbury and $3 million for the plant improvement in Niagara Falls.

The project in Niagara Falls will upgrade that city's water pollution treatment plant by converting the existing primary treatment plant into a secondary facility providing full biological treatment. My ministry's latest investment in Niagara Falls reflects our ongoing concern with respect to pollution in the Niagara River resulting from waste disposal practices on the American side. Members are aware of our three-year, $1-million program to install a pilot-scale granular activated carbon water filtration facility at Niagara Falls. I want to give every assurance that this project is proceeding.

The moneys for Timmins are to expand an existing water treatment plant to a capacity of 10 million gallons a day and to improve the water distribution system throughout Timmins south. At Sudbury, my ministry has supported over the past year a program to improve service in the community's Algonquin Road area through the provision of a new network of watermains, collector sewers and sewage pumping stations.

Negotiations with respect to federal government participation in these projects were conducted with great efficiency by the secretariat of the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development in close collaboration with officials of my ministry.

In addition to the obvious environmental benefits that these undertakings will confer on the three municipalities, new job opportunities will be created as a result of the construction and engineering required to complete these projects.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege: I would like to thank the minister for this wonderful Christmas present. I would like to commend him for taking this initiative because, in doing so, I think we can more clearly deal with our American friends in cleaning up the environment at Niagara.

If I may, four ministers later, take just a small part of the credit for keeping constant awareness of the situation.

COMMUNITY JUSTICE WEEK

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I have an announcement about Community Justice Week. The pursuit of justice and prevention of crime is not only the concern and responsibility of government, but of the citizens of Ontario as well. In order to emphasize and highlight this shared responsibility in our province, I am happy to announce that April 8 to 14, 1984, has been officially designated Community Justice Week in Ontario.

This special week will be co-ordinated by the Justice secretariat and will help to enhance public awareness about the rights and services which the justice system provides, as well as the responsibilities it places on the people of our province. We hope that volunteer participation throughout the justice system will be encouraged by our efforts.

A special emphasis this year will be placed upon the victims of crime, and I believe that victims are more important than the perpetrators of crimes. The needs, rights and feelings of victims are often trivialized and I think it is time that the concept of victim justice permeated our entire justice system. Appropriately, the theme of our week is "Victim Justice: Care and Share."

I commend the more than 50 Ontario communities which actively endorsed and participated in Community Justice Week last year and I am pleased to report that almost 100 communities have already indicated eagerness to participate in the 1984 event.

We look forward to working with the many governments, groups and agencies across the province in the planning of this most positive initiative in community-based crime prevention.

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to table the draft legislation for the Child and Family Services Act. Before I discuss these proposals in detail, I would like to set the context of their great importance with a few remarks about the history of children's services in this province.

It is a generally recognized fact that Ontario has some of the finest children's legislation in the world. We have a long and proud record of child care and protection. Nevertheless much progress has been made in just the few years since my ministry in 1977 was given responsibility for serving most of the children with special needs. I hasten to add that I do not say this in a partisan way.

The point I am making is that in these six years great strides have been made in the framing of children's services as a responsibility not just of government but of the entire community. We have advanced considerably the multidisciplinary approach to work with children, an approach that I am sure nobody would disagree is both sensible and progressive.

In addressing the requirements of these children we have striven to extend and strengthen our partnerships with others engaged in this vital work: municipalities, children's aid societies, professional agencies and many other organizations and individuals. This has been done and is continuing to be done from the standpoint of a philosophy that we consider to be practical as well as caring in the broadest sense.

That philosophy is that the care and protection of children with special needs, whatever those needs, is the responsibility of us all as legislators, as citizens, as family members and as members of the community at large. It is in this context that I would ask the House to consider the draft legislation and commentaries that have been placed before the members today.

The process of consolidating 10 existing pieces of legislation affecting children, consulting with those groups affected by the changes and drafting the new act has been a long, difficult and, indeed, controversial one. It has taken more than a year and involved 150 meetings with key groups. More than 350 written briefs were received.

As is the case in most exercises of consultation, we found that the majority of respondents focused on recommendations they opposed rather than on those they supported or on which they did not have a strong opinion. This, in a democratic society, is a natural reaction and one, indeed, to be welcomed because it adds to the element of professional expertise that is so vital in the process of policy-making.

Probably the most controversial of all our proposals were those dealing with the family. It was argued that we had been moving towards a position that was too protective of the family as a unit and not sufficiently protective of children, especially those at risk. This contention was and continues to be born from a misunderstanding of our overall objectives, and I hope that with the publication of the material before the House today we will finally succeed in removing that misunderstanding.

First, though, let me say that we listened during the public consultation process; we listened and we made changes. We have not changed our philosophical viewpoint regarding the care and protection of children in this province and the role of the family in that process, but we have reworded our proposals so that there will be no further misunderstanding of our purpose. For instance, we have avoided emphasizing the phrase "family autonomy," which gave rise to misgiving, however misplaced it may have been.

I have said before and I will say again today that the protection of children in this province is a clear and paramount duty. It is a clear and paramount duty, as it always has been, of this government, of my ministry and of all those with whom we share in this work. It is indeed a clear and paramount duty of every adult citizen of the province.

I have also said before and I will say here again today that I have no hesitation whatever in defending the family as the most basic and important of all our society's institutions. Perhaps never before has the importance of preserving and strengthening the institution of the family been so evident as it is today in these times of severe unemployment, economic hardship and international uncertainty about how to cope with the trauma of sweeping and sudden change.

More than ever, in times such as these the family is a refuge and a source of strength. The resilience of our society as a whole, its ability to survive and adjust to the forces now testing its very fabric, depends to a tremendous extent on the resilience of the family. Its survival, its sustenance is, too, the duty of us all.

What we have been trying to do with the new legislation all along is achieve a balance between the clear and paramount duty of society to protect its children and the right of parents to raise their children according to their own values and beliefs, providing that those beliefs are not unduly in conflict with the prevailing moral standards of a decent, humane and progressive society. Our purpose ideally, a practical and also a desirable purpose, is to work with the family and not at odds with the family when this is feasible and in the best interests of the children concerned.

That philosophy, as I have said, was not compromised when, after the public consultation process, we made the changes that members have before them today. But we did come to the conclusion that what was perhaps most needed was clearer guidance, a clearer statement of goals and principles, in our joint activities. We felt we could achieve this, in part at least, by removing as much as possible of the language of the proposals that was perceived to be ambiguous.

10:30 a.m.

It is our contention here that, aided by the clarity of the written statement of objectives, those whose responsibility it is to co-operate with us in children's services will succeed in achieving the unwritten values we all desire.

Given a clear statement of our society's paramount duty to protect children, I believe those organizations and individuals in service with us will also achieve, through their own professionalism, dedication and goodwill, the delicate balance between the community's duty to protect children and the right of families to carry out the duties and responsibilities of families.

I have referred repeatedly to our objectives. I want to stress here that in the task at hand we do not see ourselves as a ministry, a department of government, so much as an agent of the community at large. I will return to this point in a moment for it is a highly important one.

First, though, I would like to talk a little of the matters that are to be dealt with in the proposals before the House. It is not my intention to go into them at length.

This draft legislation, together with its accompanying commentaries, is complicated and extensive. These matters are worthy of the members' scrupulous consideration. It would serve no good purpose for me to attempt a definitive analysis today. I would instead like to touch on a few of the more important provisions.

I would draw the House's attention, first, to the proposed new declaration of principles. I will mention only the first two paragraphs in detail. These are:

(

a) In all matters under this act, the paramount objective is to ensure the best interests, protection and wellbeing of children; and

(

b) While parents often need assistance in caring for their children, the assistance should, wherever possible, support the family unit and be provided on a voluntary basis.

The consultation paper proposed that the services being provided be grouped into the five categories of family support, residential care, child and family service, child development and youth work. As a result of the feedback received, it is now proposed that the services be grouped differently -- as child welfare services, child development services, treatment services, young offenders services and community support services.

There was considerable discussion during the consultation period on

definitions in existing legislation and on our earlier proposals concerning children in need of protection. We have again made material changes that do not change the existing intention of the legislation so much as provide a clearer statement of purpose.

For example, the word "serious" has been deleted in regard to the test of whether a child has suffered, or is at risk of suffering, physical harm.

The proposal that the authority of a child and family service agency to apprehend a child without court authorization should be limited to emergency situations has also been revised. As the proposal now stands, apprehension would be permitted where there are reasonable grounds to believe there is a need for protection and that the time taken to obtain a warrant would endanger the child. In such a case, the matter must be brought to court within five days of the necessary interim intervention.

In general, in connection with this point, I believe our new draft legislation will provide great assistance to the courts and other law enforcement authorities and to the children's aid societies in carrying out their duties, again through the provision of a clearer statement of purpose.

I should mention in passing that provisions for dealing with children in need of protection will also be used when it is necessary to intervene with children under 12 after the federal Young Offenders Act comes into force. Under that act, children under 12 will no longer be charged with an offence.

During the consultation period, some concern was expressed by professionals, including doctors, psychiatrists and social workers, that the review process for children who had been placed in long-term residential care of one type or another might be unwieldy and overly bureaucratic, that it might even cause some children to become lost in the system, so to speak.

The purpose of the consultation was to elicit such constructive criticism and, again, we have made desired changes. We have now proposed a peer review mechanism that I believe will satisfy the reservations of those who will be involved in these deliberations. I think our new proposals on this matter will be seen as nonlegalistic and flexible, though still effective in serving children in need of care and treatment, both in the long and the short term.

Earlier, I spoke of the ministry regarding itself in the task at hand as an agent of the community at large. In closing, I would like to return to that thought.

What we are presenting today, I believe, is good draft legislation in a highly complicated and emotional field. We have endeavoured to reconcile differences of opinion among those organizations and individuals who co-operate with us in this difficult area through full and open consultation. That consultation will continue in this forum.

I would therefore say to all members of this House, and in particular the members of the standing committee on social development which I understand will be studying these proposals through the winter months, that my officials and I look forward to working with them.

We are all working in the best interests of families and children. This, I suggest, is not a political matter. It is something that is of vital concern to all of us as members of the larger community, for our children are not only the wards of us all, their wellbeing is essential to our future.

TRIBUTE TO SECURITY OFFICER

Mr. Speaker: If I may have the indulgence of the House, I would like to recognize a person who has served this chamber faithfully and well over the last several years. He will be retiring in February 1984 and this is the last opportunity we will have to say thanks to him. Sam Harland has served for the past nine years on the sessional platoons of the security service in the chamber. I want to recognize the service Mr. Harland has provided.

He has always carried out his responsibilities with great efficiency, dignity and sensitivity. I know you will join me in wishing him well in future years and that he may enjoy health and happiness.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I share your remarks and I can think of no finer candidate for a Queen's Counsel in the next month or two.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PREBUDGET STATEMENT

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer with respect to his economic statement yesterday. When one cuts it down, one can see the projections he made were on the assumption that there were no policy changes at either the federal or provincial level. At the same time, given current assumptions, there is going to be an increase in the deficit which he has said is not tolerable in his view. He is worried about threats to the triple-A credit rating of the province; therefore, there are going to be tax increases coming in his next budget. That is the clear conclusion.

If the Treasurer wanted meaningful input into the budgetary process and wide consultation as to the potential consequences of his exercising various tax options, why would he not bring forward what his options are? Why would he not present econometric studies or analyses of what those increases in taxes would do to his various forecasts on growth, consumption, retail sales and a variety of other things? Why would he not share all that information with the people of Ontario so that we could have a meaningful discussion about our economic future rather than just facing this self-serving pap he has given us?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the presumptions the member is making are not necessarily accurate. If he will read the statement, he will find we have indicated that if spending grew at the same rate as our revenues are projected to grow, then it will produce a deficit which is larger than it ought to be. Neither of those presumptions may be in place next May.

There will be policy changes at both the federal and provincial levels which will affect both spending and revenues, so one should not presume that this scenario will still be in place next May. That is what it looks like now if our spending increases at the same rate. The first presumption that we have to remember is that there will be policy changes and the projection as laid out in the statement will be affected by those changes.

Second, in terms of where we go next May, there are many options open to us. No decisions have been made and the point of this document is to lay out the general framework for adjusting those policies by next May so that we do not end up with an increased deficit and with cuts and taxes where they cannot be afforded.

10:40 a.m.

If the member looks back at the many budgets preceding the one next May, he will find we have usually had some sort of mixture of those. In some circumstances, one of the mixtures has not included tax changes.

This is simply background showing what the projection would be if spending rose to match our revenues. That is not a presumption; it is an assumption which gives a projection if nothing were to change. That is the purpose of the document.

Mr. Peterson: The net result is that taxpayers are again going to be losers. That is a reality unless the government is tougher on some of its wasteful expenditures such as Suncor, the land banks and a whole variety of things.

The other clear result of the Treasurer's statement of yesterday is that property taxes will increase across this province. Every municipal analyst who has looked at what the Treasurer has said recognizes there is going to be a property tax increase, probably very much in excess of five per cent, as a direct result of his transfers.

Why would the Treasurer not have included those projections in his statement of yesterday? Why did he back off on his commitment to me in the House a couple of weeks ago when I asked him about municipal transfers? He said he would be transferring over and above the five per cent wage component. Why has he decided again, for I do not know how many times, to transfer his tax burdens on to the regressive property tax and further punish people in this province?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let us be clear about the unconditional grants. Last year they were 4.3 per cent; this year we have announced five per cent. As I go down the list of all the transfers I announced yesterday, only the unconditional grants to municipalities out of that whole list will go up at a quicker rate and have a larger figure. All the others have lower transfers, obviously reflecting differences in inflation impacting on those this year as opposed to last year.

Those who would suggest municipal mill rates need to go up and that there is a transference of obligations and taxes to the municipal taxpayer are, with respect, not interpreting it and not understanding it, or are perhaps just looking for more money.

Last year it was 4.3 per cent; this year it has gone up to five per cent. That is hardly consistent with the analysis the Leader of the Opposition wants to put forward.

Mr. Peterson: Is the Treasurer prepared to give assistance to those municipalities whose wage settlements go up in excess of five per cent? Is he now willing to tell those municipalities that if they do get stuck with a higher award, because there is no relief from that, he is going to provide assistance so property taxes will not go up? Will the Treasurer make that clear commitment?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let me give a clear answer. The answer is no, we are not about to abandon all our efforts to fight inflation and to continue to get the inflation rate below 5.3 per cent. That is our projection for next year. As I said in my statement, that is too high.

If the member wants to put forward the proposition that we should encourage, through the provincial tax base or any tax base, settlements in excess of the rate of inflation, then I have to say we could not disagree more fundamentally on how the future of this economy should be structured and should unfold.

My colleagues on this side of the House and I strongly believe we must continue the fight against inflation and that those settlements should not be encouraged to go higher. The settlements both in the public and private sectors must be encouraged to be lower. That is what will protect the provincial and the municipal tax bases.

WHITE FARM EQUIPMENT CANADA LTD.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Trade. Could the minister bring this House up to date on the very disturbing news about the breakdown in negotiations between Borg-Warner and White Farm Equipment? What is he doing to save those 1,000 or so jobs? Is it indeed a fact that the negotiations are at an impasse?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, we are disturbed ourselves. We had no warning until the press reports came out yesterday. We have been very concerned about it. I understand the Ministry of Labour is standing by, if asked, because it appears to be a question of resolving a difference of opinion between the United Auto Workers and the potential buyers in terms of the contract conditions. I believe that was a precondition to the agreement or it was spelled into the memorandum of understanding entered into at the time of the acceptance of the offer.

Obviously, Ontario is very anxious to see a satisfactory resolution of those differences. In reading the newspaper reports today, which are as accurate as any other sources I have right now, from what I can tell there appears to be in the quotations attributed to the representatives of Borg-Warner a glimmer of opening for some counter-offer to bring the two sides together.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, since the representative of Borg-Warner is quoted as saying, "This is not a negotiating tactic, it is for real," does the minister not think he and his colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) might call in the representatives of Borg-Warner, the UAW and the receiver, since one of the major alternatives to this is simply the liquidation of the assets and the loss of those jobs, and indicate our direct concern and interest and try to work out an agreement between the two sides so that we are not going to play this brinkmanship game, which could result in the loss of these 1,000 jobs?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Let me assure the member that Ontario is not playing any brinkmanship game. Indeed, Ontario stands --

Mr. Nixon: I know that. Surely you understand what I am saying.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I hope so. I am only saying that because this is a difference of opinion between the potential employer and the union representing the employees, I would suspect my colleague would require some request; I am not sure of that. I would also assume he would quickly respond --

Mr. Nixon: Don't play an Alphonse and Gaston game with this important matter.

Hon. F. S. Miller: No, I am not. I simply say my ministry obviously does not get involved in the direct discussions between the unions and the company. I do not think we should because we could do more harm than good. My colleague, on the other hand, has very experienced people who know how and when to do these things.

I assure the member opposite that it is in our interest and I hope to see this resolved. I hear the other potential buyer from Manitoba making sounds saying, "I am still ready to take the deal and move it all out of Ontario." Obviously, we want to keep it here.

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Speaker, my friend the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) is quite right. The report is very confusing because the representative of Borg-Warner has said, "This is not a negotiating tactic, it is for real." But he also said he is "hoping the union may come to its senses" and approach the receiver.

My information is that the UAW and Borg-Warner are only about 15 cents apart in negotiating a new contract and that they are very close to resolving the question of back pay. In view of the government's very considerable investment of some $8 million or $9 million in this company, will the minister undertake to tell me and the other members of this House that he will not allow White Farm Equipment to move out to Winnipeg but will use his good offices to keep it where it belongs, in Brantford?

Hon. F. S. Miller: My colleague's question assumes I can order them to stay where they are. If I could, I would. It is as simple as that.

I obviously want them to stay in Ontario and I obviously want them to stay in Brantford. I can only assure the member we will do whatever we can, but there is a role for the two parties, too. It was the second quote that gave me some glimmer of hope. I saw it as an indication that the company was at least still willing to listen.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker. I am disturbed, frankly, that the minister and the government are not a little more up on this situation. He knows how hard he works to create jobs in this province, and we face the spectre of 1,000 lost jobs. Surely this is worthy of a herculean effort on his part and on the part of the Minister of Labour and anybody he deems necessary in that exercise. I am disturbed by the indication of hesitation on the part of the minister, that he is not prepared to take a little more initiative.

May I ask him to take the initiative in conjunction with his colleague? If the differences are as small as 15 cents an hour, there may be a resolution here. There is some meeting of the minds, but it has clearly broken down. Who knows when the minister personally and his offices may be able to break that logjam?

I am asking him on behalf of the people of this province and of Brantford in particular to make sure he exercises every single possible power he has to try to make this thing happen.

10:50 a.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Of course we do; but at the same time I am sure I have heard many times from all sides of the House that we should allow the process of negotiation that exists between these parties to be as free as possible. I can only suggest that further questions on the process of negotiation are better directed to my colleague the Minister of Labour than to me.

TRUST COMPANIES

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Premier about the conduct of the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea). I was told the Premier (Mr. Davis) would be in the House for that question, and I hope efforts will be made to find him. He is on the list as being in the assembly this morning, and this is the last opportunity we have to ask him directly about that matter.

In the Premier's absence, I will go by way of another question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. It concerns the question of concentration in the trust industry. I am sure the minister is aware that the six largest trust companies operating in Ontario have 64 per cent of the total assets of all the trust companies operating in the province. I am sure he is also aware that the largest, Royal Trust Corp. of Canada, the Royal Trust Co., is itself owned and basically controlled by the Edward and Peter wing of the Bronfman family and that the problem of concentration in that industry goes through Royal Trust to Canada Trust to Victoria and Grey and Canada Permanent Trust.

Given this fact of concentration, which is undeniable, and the fact that these institutions are competing directly with banks that are subject to quite different rules with respect to concentration, why did his ministry reject the basic proposal that there be a share limitation in terms of ownership in the trust industry when most observers recognize that the problem of concentration in the trust industry is growing and becoming more serious and more difficult to control?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, first of all, in a broad sense, and I am sure there was no implication otherwise, the issue of concentration of power and competition and so forth is not a matter within the jurisdiction of this government. The specific issue raised is the issue of the trust companies and the recent white paper proposals. I know the view of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson), which was well accepted in a recent by-election, is that there should be limitation of ownership with respect to the trust companies in this province.

I think I have answered this before, but I am pleased to do it again for members of the House, because we did go through a very careful and thorough deliberation on this issue and we concluded as follows.

First, if one looks back historically, the situation with respect to the banks and the limitation of ownership there was first imposed at a time when economic nationalism was in everybody's mind. That was one of the primary reasons it was put in place. This government, through legislation in the securities industry and the trust industry, similarly dealt with foreign ownership within those industries. I am sure the member appreciates that.

Second, it was not a difficult situation with respect to the banks. As the member knows, ownership of banks is widespread among a number of mutual funds and a number of individuals so it was not a matter of great consequence. Third, it has not been our impression that limited ownership in the banks has avoided concentration of power within the banking community. Indeed, what we seem to see is that the concentration of power continues to grow within that industry.

Finally, the recent proposals of the federal government with respect to limitation of ownership, which I am not sure they now support -- indeed, I have evidence to believe otherwise -- were related to companies with deposits of over $1 billion. Certainly, on the basis of our recent experience, those proposals would have had no effect whatsoever.

I am sure the member will also take notice as he reviews the white paper proposals that one of the criteria we propose the registrar look at when he is approving a transfer of a trust company is the issue of competition.

Mr. Rae: It is unbelievable that the minister would take the view that the question of competition is solely in the jurisdiction of the federal government when he knows full well trust companies that are incorporated in Ontario come fully within the jurisdiction of the government of Ontario and fully within the jurisdiction of this Legislature. He knows that.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: Does the minister think it appropriate that one individual, Henry N. R. Jackman, Esq., should control not only Victoria and Grey Trust Co. and the Premier Trust Co., but should also have a controlling interest in the National Trust Co. Ltd. In turn, Victoria and Grey has interests in the Casualty Co. of Canada, Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co., the Debenture and Securities Corp. of Canada, etc.

The degree of financial concentration in the insurance industry, the finance industry and the trust industry is growing and it is growing in a sense that is profoundly worrisome to many observers of the financial scene who are not, I might point out, members of the New Democratic Party.

Is the minister concerned about that degree of concentration? Is he concerned about the interests that are being held now by trust companies in the insurance industry and elsewhere? Is he concerned about the impact this is going to have on competition and a degree of real fairness in the whole financial services field?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I think a perusal of the white paper with its conflict of interest provisions and its other comments with respect to the issue of holding companies and their control of a diversity of industries will show these are matters we have looked at.

I find it intriguing that in the first part of the member's question he referred to Royal Trust, Canada Trust and so forth, all federally incorporated companies, but the final so-called coup de grace came in reference to Victoria and Grey. Is there some reason he has to believe that company is not acting appropriately and has not been responsible or accountable to the shareholders and fair to this province in an honest and honourable way?

Mr. Renwick: That is deliberate misrepresentation by the minister.

Interjections.

Mr. Rae: That kind of comment is really beneath the minister. There was no --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Final supplementary please.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear and let the minister be very clear as to what he is saying. What we are talking about is a trend which has been worrying observers of the scene in this country for a very long time. It has to do with the degree of concentration in the trust industry which is not subject to any rules with respect to dispersion which other financial institutions are subject to. He should not talk about anything else because nothing else has been mentioned in this House and the minister knows it.

Is the minister aware of the statements that have been made by the former chairman of the Ontario Securities Commission, Mr. Knowles, who has expressed a profound concern about the fact that a very few families now have control not only of the trust industry but also of the insurance industry? Is he aware of that fact? Is he aware of Mr. Knowles's opinions in this regard? What does he intend to do about it in terms of the future of this province and the ability of the little people to be able to compete with these giant companies which are gaining a control over the whole structure of the financial and insurance industry in Ontario?

Mr. Speaker: Just before the minister responds to that, I would ask the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) -- and I am sure he made the remark in an emotional outburst -- if he would withdraw the observation he made.

Mr. Renwick: There was nothing emotional about it. I am surprised at the minister, but I certainly will withdraw it if you think it is improper, sir.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I am aware Mr. Knowles made a speech. I must confess I have not read it. I am aware, as I am sure the honourable member is, that there are a variety of debates and discussions going on in the financial institutions area in general today. I think if the member had had the opportunity to read the remarks I made to a group meeting on Monday to discuss those issues, he would have read that I do not think the changes that are taking place in the financial institutions area should take place without government involvement.

I think public involvement is very important in the reputation and integrity of those institutions and that government involvement is important in the management and consideration of changes that take place in that industry. I committed myself to being involved in that process.

CHILD ABUSE

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Attorney General, in the absence of the Premier (Mr. Davis), who we were all told would be here today, the last day on which we have an opportunity to question the leader of the government. He was able to make a 15-minute speech with respect to an election victory in Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, but he is not here to answer leaders' questions with respect to the operation of the government, which I find absolutely incredible.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

11 a.m.

Mr. Rae: I would like to address a question to the Attorney General concerning the remarks that were made both inside the House and outside this chamber by his colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea). I asked the Attorney General, on the day those remarks were made, whether he would make an inquiry with respect to the law. I would like to ask him whether he has made that inquiry and whether he is prepared to make a report to the House with respect to those remarks.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, what I said was that we were looking into the matter. As the honourable member knows, there are a number of allegations of statements made outside the House. We will be reporting to the House when we have an opinion.

I know the leader of the New Democratic Party would like to turn this into some sort of political football. However, I am not going to do it.

Mr. Rae: It is obvious the Attorney General is not going to do anything. He has had four days in which to interview the parties involved. He has had four days in which to interview the woman involved. He has had four days in which to interview the Minister of Community and Social Services and to look at the

section of the legislation.

There is no alternative but to suggest that he is not prepared to come into this chamber to make a report with respect to the activities of one of his colleagues when it is clearly in breach of the statute and clearly in breach of his obligations as a minister to protect the confidentiality of records on the child abuse register.

When is the Attorney General going to make this report, if he is not going to make it today?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have nothing further to add.

Mr. Rae: This represents an absolute and total cover-up by the government with respect to the conduct of the Minister of Community and Social Services, nothing more and nothing less.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: That is total nonsense.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the Attorney General please resume his seat?

Mr. Rae: He should have the courage to come into this House or the courtesy to answer the question.

Mr. Speaker: Again, I call the attention of the leader of the New Democratic Party to the language he used.

Mr. Bradley: To which you listened with great interest.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I listened with great attention. However, I would ask the leader of the New Democratic Party to withdraw his remarks in the interest of --

Mr. Laughren: It's not unparliamentary.

Mr. Speaker: I beg your pardon?

Mr. McClellan: It was not an unparliamentary remark.

Mr. Speaker: I am not suggesting that it was.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: You make political and parliamentary and all sorts of --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: Distortion. That is if --

Some hon. members: Sit down.

Mr. Speaker: We can both stand here all day, you know.

Mr. Martel: You can do what you want.

Mr. Ruston: Let's adjourn the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, for the last couple of weeks, you and several of your deputies have simply added words. Last week, I was forced to withdraw the word "distort." Are you going to continually add to the list daily, or are you going to have some guidelines? Just what is it? If you do not like something, it is out of order.

On that side of the House, the minister just made an accusation against my leader. That was quite fine. He deliberately distorted what my leader said. However, you did not say anything. It was an inference against my leader, but that is okay.

You either conduct this in an impartial manner or they will start dreaming up new words to dump on your list every day.

Mr. Speaker: Do not come in here and assume you can give me direction.

Mr. Martel: Well, don't you either. Just show some fairness and we'll accept it, or we won't play the game.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not hear any inflammatory language on the part of the minister.

Mr. Laughren: No, you never do.

Mr. Martel: It does not have to be inflammatory. You can slip it in nicely, and then it is okay, isn't it?

Mr. Speaker: You are the teacher, not me.

Mr. Martel: You're supposed to be --

Mr. Speaker: I am indeed. For the information of all members, it is not a question of whether the language is unparliamentary or not. I have mentioned this many times. It is the context in which it is used.

Mr. Breithaupt: It's not what you say, it's how you say it.

Mr. Speaker: Just a minute.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Get Mary Brown in here then.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, when my colleague the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) got up and said that the minister --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Ruston: Let's adjourn until next Monday.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have asked the member for York South to --

Mr. Martel: Well, ask the minister to withdraw too.

Mr. Speaker: No, he -- well, I am not going to get into an argument.

Mr. Martel: I know; don't ask him.

Mr. Speaker: I imagine the member for York South has given the matter due consideration and, in the interest of the decorum of the House, he will please withdraw his remark.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have always respected the chair. If you feel the use of a term is unparliamentary, I will not use that term. The substance of my remarks is a matter of record, and the record of the government is a matter of record. But I have always respected your judgement with respect to the use of language.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the New Democratic Party has made a serious allegation against two members of this Legislature, one of whom is a member of the executive council. The other is the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps). As the Attorney General and as the senior law officer of the crown in this province, I regard such an allegation as a very serious matter.

After the question was asked, within an hour I had instructed my staff to look into the matter, to review the facts as we can ascertain them through press and media reports as well as what was stated in this House. When we have an opinion to express on this matter, we will express it. Given the interest in the matter, and as the House obviously will not be sitting for some weeks, I will be quite prepared to make a public statement at the appropriate time.

But in a matter of this seriousness, which requires some careful consideration and review, we are not going to be stampeded into rushing through with some opinion just to suit the member's own partisan political agenda.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, what about the tone?

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, you say I am imputing motives. Is that not imputing motives?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just give me an opportunity before you give me directions. I am sure the Attorney General would rather withdraw the use of those words.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, if you feel suggesting they have a political agenda is unfair, I will withdraw it. I would not have thought they would have chosen to deny that fact.

DELAY IN COMPLETION OF HOMES

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations relating to the Markham situation. The minister is aware of the terrible situation that exists with the 21 families that paid out thousands of dollars, in many cases their life savings, as deposits to purchase homes in Markham. This situation has been dragging on for some time and no solution is yet in sight since the developer and builder are squabbling over who owns the lots and are taking each other to court. The Toronto Home Builders Association has hired a lawyer to represent the home buyers.

Because of these circumstances, the home warranty program is unable to help those people until the courts determine who is at fault.

In view of the fact that this is a situation without precedent, and it has been alleged the families cannot recover their money until the judicial process has run its course, will the minister look into this situation to see whether some special action could be taken in this unique situation, such as an order in council to enable the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada to reimburse the 21 families? One of several other suitable mechanisms could be employed, such as an ex gratia payment or a payment and release whereby the government would be subrogated to any future recovery in the courts.

11:10 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the situation and I agree with the honourable member that it is not just unfortunate, but is tragic from the point of view of those people who have put deposits down and have now spent some considerable time respecting the debates and the battles that are going on legally.

At the moment, I am not prepared to discuss it in any greater detail for reasons I hope the member will respect. I can only say we are exploring all possible options to endeavour to be of some assistance to those people. I happen to think the mere statement that somewhere down the line, if they are out their deposits, they will be covered, does not help them, because it is such a prolonged and, I am sure, very troublesome issue for many of them.

Mr. Epp: I am sure the minister agrees that the situation must not be allowed to happen again. Under the present system the onus is on the home buyer to insert a clause in his contract nullifying the deal if the house is not completed by a certain date. In many cases, such as the Markham situation, the builder can simply refuse to accept this clause. Therefore, what constitutes a reasonable delay in completing the home has to be decided by the courts.

In view of this, would the minister consider the merits of legislation providing for standard contracts for home purchases that include a clause dealing specifically with the time allotted for completion of the home, allowing for this time to be flexibly negotiated between the home buyer and the builder but, in any event, not less than 180 days, and ensuring through this device that the time needed to complete the home is clearly spelled out and is settled before the deposits are made?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I am sure the member appreciates that it is not by way of question in this chamber that any decision will be made as to whether any action will be taken to try to avoid situations like this in the future. I think the fact that I have indicated we see it as more than an unfortunate situation -- it is tragic for those people -- means we will be exploring a number of options and looking at possibilities.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, the minister has had this matter under consideration for a considerable period of time. Was his first response to the member for Waterloo North to the effect that he has exhausted all the available options open to him and that these persons are going to suffer that direct loss?

Mr. Elgie: No. Mr. Speaker, I did not say that. What I said was that a number of options are still being explored, and I would prefer not to discuss them in the House at this time.

Mr. Cousens: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary on the whole question of there being a precedent for this. I would like to ask the minister whether he could comment on precedents to this kind of situation where the government does go beyond the limits of HUDAC to assist home owners in this matter.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any legislative authority for the government to make the kind of payment the honourable member is talking about. The home warranty program is set up by HUDAC and really functions on the basis of its own income. The member has raised this with me on many occasions, and I want to assure him that we are exploring options with respect to the very difficult problems these people are facing.

REBATES FROM ILLEGAL RENTS

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I want to ask whether he is aware of a company called Rent Recovery Service, 6013 Yonge Street, Willowdale. It is a private business set up to collect rebates for tenants from landlords who are charging illegal rents. As its fee for services, this company charges 50 per cent of any moneys collected from landlords who are charging illegal rents.

Do I understand that illegal rents are so widespread in this province that private entrepreneurs can set up a business and make a living out of half the proceeds of illegal rents? How long has the minister known about this company, Rent Recovery Service? Why has he done nothing to prevent the flagrant violation of Ontarios residential tenancy law by landlords who charge illegal rents?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I confess I have not heard of this company, nor have I been advised of its existence. I take umbrage with the statement that the government and the Residential Tenancy Commission have ignored or avoided the issue of illegal rents. I am sure the honourable member knows full well that even during this fall there were numerous charges, and to the best of my recollection there have been some convictions registered with respect to the whole issue of illegal rents.

As we know from the annual report, a number of situations with respect to rental payments have been mediated successfully. The member also knows that the Stuart Thom commission in phase one of its report presumably will be looking at matters like that. So to say that the government is ignoring it is not quite accurate.

Mr. McClellan: The minister may be interested to know that Rent Recovery Service is having a Christmas sale. This week they are charging only 10 per cent of any moneys they rebate to tenants that are recovered from illegal rents. Is the minister not aware that the Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations legal service wrote to him on November 18 about this very matter? Does he not read his mail?

May I ask the minister for an assurance that in the spring session of the Legislature he will bring forward legislation to establish a mandatory rent registry and to empower the Residential Tenancy Commission to hear and investigate complaints from tenants about illegal rents, to audit rents that are being charged in this province and to enforce the law, with stiff penalties for violations?

When does he intend to stop permitting the residential tenancies law of this province to be flouted with impunity by any landlord in Ontario who wants to charge illegal rents? When is he going to start enforcing the laws of this province?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Again, I did not even know there was a special of 10 per cent. I would have thought the number on the member's mind these days would be -- is it 2.9 per cent or three per cent? I cannot recall the figure, but I know that is a figure the member does not want to talk about much these days. I must confess that I honestly do not recollect being advised about that firm, and if that warrants an apology, then I offer it. But I am not trying to withhold anything; I am not trying to avoid issues. Certainly no one has ever accused me of that.

However, I think the member opposite is avoiding the issue when he suggests there has been any lack of interest in prosecuting those who have been found to he charging illegal rents. I do not think the record substantiates that, and if the member honestly reviews charges laid this past fall, I think he will have to agree with that.

As to what the government will be proposing by way of legislative change, when the Thom commission report comes in it will be reviewed and evaluated by me and my colleagues on this side of the House, and proposals will be put forward before the Legislature for the consideration of the whole Legislature.

HOSPITAL ADMITTANCE DELAYS

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health. I want to bring to his attention the continuing intolerable delays that are taking place for people all over southwestern Ontario who need specialist operations in London hospitals.

I do not want to name my constituent in this place, but I will send the minister all the pertinent information. My constituent developed cataracts suddenly last year and has been blind for nearly a year. She is a 52-year-old widow and will need someone to care for her until she has an operation to restore her sight. This past Monday my constituent saw Dr. Charles Dyson, a specialist in this kind of surgery in London, who informed her that he would not be able to book her for surgery until January 1985.

Will the minister please look into this specific situation? Will he tell us why a woman like this, faced with these enormous problems, has to wait 13 months for an operation to restore her physical and, obviously, emotional health?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I certainly shall. It does sound rather extraordinary that the time to book such surgery should be that far into the future. There may be some factors that are not apparent on the face of the information available at the moment, but I will be pleased to check further into it.

Mr. Wrye: The problems of bed shortages in London, especially with the number of specialists serving that area of the province, were raised with the minister's predecessor as far back as June 1983. The fact is that the physician in question in this matter, Dr. Dyson, who is one of Ontario's renowned specialists in this area, has just 13 beds a week assigned to him and sees between 20 and 30 new patients every week from all over the area. It is also a fact that this critical bed shortage affects not just my constituent but people from all over southwestern Ontario.

11:20 a.m.

How can we expect the government of this province to provide adequate beds for hospitals such as the Victoria and University hospitals, which serve such a large area and population of this province, when the minister will not act on many of the recommendations that his consultant reported to his ministry as early as the spring of this year?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I think if the member has addressed this issue with any degree of intensity he will understand that the situation he describes with respect to a particular physician or a particular service may not represent a general bed shortage at all. In fact, in some hospitals, by virtue of what I think personally are sometimes antiquated methods of allocating beds, they can end up with a surplus of beds in some services and an apparent shortage in others. It is incumbent upon the administrations and the boards of those hospitals to try to come up with a more effective way of allocating beds.

If the situation described represents a general problem with respect to bed availability in the hospitals to which the member refers, then I will certainly report back to him. But I will have to check further to get more details.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, the minister must realize that the hospitals in London are not just hospitals for the London area; they are regional hospitals that serve the entire area of southwestern Ontario.

I raised this matter in the Legislature in the spring and the minister's predecessor said the matter was under control and additional beds were going to be put in service in order to meet the need because of the consultant's report.

When is the minister going to put the beds in service so that people are not having to wait months, and in this case a year, in order to get so-called elective surgery? Does he not understand what he puts people through when they have to wait several months?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member knows that it my predecessor made that statement to him, then it is the truth. My predecessor would never mislead that member or any other member of this House, either advertently or inadvertently; and he agrees with me.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I might deceive you, but nobody else in this House.

Hon. Mr. Norton: That is right. He says he might mislead me, but nobody else in the House.

I shall report to the member as well as soon as I have the information available.

AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTION

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Trade. The minister will know that it will be one year next Friday since Chrysler Corp. cancelled its engine proposal, which had been worked out with both the provincial and federal governments. The minister will also know that in the last few years Chrysler Corp. in Windsor has closed its truck plant, its engine plant and its spring plant and that there is no car being built by that company in Canada.

In view of the fact that this company signed the Federal Task Force on the Canadian Motor Vehicle and Auto Parts Industries report, and in view of the fact that the company is not living up to a 60 per cent Canadian value added in its own company, what action is this government prepared to take to make sure the engine plant in Windsor is reactivated so that, instead of importing hundreds of thousands of engines from Japan to be put into Chrysler products, we will produce those engines here in Canada?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, in fairness, I think my friend -- who I believe attended the opening of the new Chrysler plant not long ago, did he not? -- will realize that perhaps the biggest single investment Chrysler has ever made in any single location, $400-odd million, was just made in Windsor, Ontario.

I believe the number of people currently at work includes most, if not all, of the people laid off. They have put into Windsor what we hope is one of their potentially most successful products. It required a restructuring of facilities. The one that was moved down to the United States, the Fifth Avenue rear-wheel drive plant, while successful, is seen as a short-term product,

whereas the one put into Windsor looks like the coming generation of product.

I am sure he is also aware that the engine plant he talked about last year, by my recollection, was a Perkins-Massey-Chrysler deal related to diesel; that for the time being diesel engines have lost something of their market demand and that this was more the reason behind the change than any, as I recall.

With respect to the 60 per cent bit, does the member want me then to cut Chrysler off or recommend that it be cut off entirely and see that the jobs all go to the US? I do not think he does.

Mr. Cooke: It is a pretty silly response. The reality is that there are 6,000 fewer jobs at Chrysler than there were in 1978 and they are importing hundreds of thousands of engines from Japan, not diesel engines but engines that could be produced in that plant.

Does the minister not feel it is absolutely essential that we get diversification in that city and in the auto industry? We should not be reliant on a van-wagon and a van, in case the sales go down. When a car company is producing a car we should also be doing some parts, an engine. Does the minister not feel it is his responsibility to work with that company, which is now making record profits and has invested only half of what it originally promised it would invest in Canada in retooling?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Of course, it is in our long-term interest to see that happen. Three years ago, probably the member and certainly I did not believe we would see the company in existence. It has made very real strides. I believe we will see success. The 2.6-litre engine the member is talking about is a Mitsubishi engine. Whether I like it or not, the world car exists today.

The issue is not whether the engine is from Mitsubishi. The counter issue is what we ship to make up for the things we import. That is the field I have been working hard on. That is why my speeches of late have stressed that we have to deal with the Japanese on the basis that there must be 60 per cent Canadian content. That is why I have supported the task force to Ottawa. That is why I am asking Mr. Lumley, who comes from Windsor, and three federal ministers to stand up with us and say, "There must be 60 per cent on the Japanese cars."

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I come at this a little differently from my friend the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke) who continues to complain that we do not have a car in spite of the fact the van-wagon is likely to be the biggest seller and the most pleasant surprise Chrysler will have in many a year. I am glad Chrysler has chosen to put it in Windsor.

We have an empty engine plant. In Windsor we have one of the highest rates of unemployment in the province. About the only areas I can think of that are higher are Sault Ste. Marie and perhaps part of the Niagara Peninsula. What specifically is the minister doing to try to convince Chrysler to either put that engine plant back into operation and well over 1,000 people back to work or. as an alternative, to get Chrysler Corp. to build some other parts in Windsor so that we can get that 60 per cent value added and have those exports?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, unless my arithmetic is wrong, I understood that Chrysler, and at times Ford, were not complying with the strictest terms of the auto trade pact. On the other hand, the last time I saw the overall Canadian figures for the value added in Canada, we were well ahead of the projections and the requirement in total. As the member knows, there has been an anomaly in trade in the past two years. We have had a trade surplus in the sum total of auto parts and cars with the US.

Whether I like it or not, if an analysis is made, a good deal of that was due to Chrysler Corp. contrary to the image being given here now. The products they were making were selling very well. It was only a short while back I heard my colleagues being criticized in this House for not putting pressure on General Motors, Ford and Chrysler to put the products in Canada that were seen to have a future. We now have them. We have them in every company. We are making good progress.

I will be continuing to put pressure on the company now that it is able to invest some money. At the same time, I hope the members will all be kind enough to realize that when we do help a company like Ford put an engine plant into Windsor, it is a bit tough when we are not thanked for it, and by some people we are even criticized for it.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, before I ask my question, could I direct a comment to the Minister of Industry and Trade? I understood the content legislation was Canadian parts for Japanese cars, not Japanese engines for Canadian cars. Maybe we had better check.

Mr. Speaker: Now to the question, please.

11:30 a.m.

HOSPITAL ADMITTANCE DELAYS

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health. In responding to my colleague the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye) with respect to bed shortages in London, I recall the minister saying something to the effect that the problem is not widespread. I want to draw to his attention that four weeks ago during his absence, the acting Minister of Health, the member for Scarborough North (Mr. Wells), was asked a question with respect to bed shortages in Kitchener-Waterloo. I hope the minister has been given that information.

At the time, I drew to the acting minister's attention that seven patients in Kitchener-Waterloo Hospital had to have their surgery cancelled because of a lack of beds. It was discovered that 58 beds in that hospital were being occupied by people who were waiting to go into nursing homes and chronic care facilities.

The acting Minister of Health said he would have the ministry review the request of the local health council to have additional chronic and nursing home beds established in the Kitchener-Waterloo area. Can the minister indicate today whether or not that review has been carried out and whether or not a favourable response can be brought to my constituents?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I presume the most important part of the question is the last part, whether or not there is an opportunity for a favourable response at this time. I would point out to the honourable member that I cannot give him any response because we are still awaiting the final word on the allocation of beds for this fiscal year.

I hope we will have the word on that in the near future. It would be only at that point that we would be able to review the priorities established by district health councils and the needs in the various communities across Ontario to establish province-wide priorities. I can only say at this stage that I would hope we will have the allocation firmed up early in the new year.

There is one additional point I would like to make, although the member may say it does not have a direct impact upon his question. I think it is not at all uncommon for us to experience what appears to be a shortage of beds, particularly in the fall. It is a very common phenomenon that people choose not to have elective procedures done during the summer months and save their options, if they have them, until the fall.

I received letters early in the fall, particularly this year as it is my first year in this ministry, from patients complaining vociferously about that very fact. In one instance, a woman explained to me she had spent the summer at the cottage with her husband and had chosen not to have elective procedures performed during that time. She went to her doctor to get a date for the procedures and he told her the earliest would be November 1. She was very upset about that because it conflicted with her departure to Mexico for the winter.

Mr. Speaker: That is a very full answer.

Hon. Mr. Norton: We cannot build hospitals to meet those very specific needs in all cases.

Mr. Sweeney: I would draw to the minister's attention that neither I nor the local health council has requested that he build more hospitals. All we are saying is that the beds are there but they are being occupied by people who should be in chronic care or nursing facilities. Until these people are moved we will continue to have this problem, whether it is in the fall, the spring, the winter or whenever.

To back up that contention, we did a random sampling of nine nursing homes in our area. May I share with the minister the results so that he will know the impact of what I am talking about?

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps you could just ask the question.

Mr. Sweeney: Sunnyside Home had a three- month waiting list; Millwood Manor, six months; Maryhill, up to five years; Pinehaven, one year; Cambridge Country Manor could not even give me a figure; Heritage House, six months; St. Raphael's could not give me a figure.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Sweeney: Nine at random all had very long waiting lists.

The prompting for my original question was a 97-year-old woman living with her quite elderly daughter who physically could no longer look after her. She was trying to get into a nursing home. This is the impact.

Would the minister not agree, in view of that kind of waiting list in one community, that the request to the local health council is not a frivolous one? It is based on fact. We cannot have 97-year-old patients being looked after by their own elderly children. As an aside, I should point out that the 97-year-old woman is now in a hospital bed because there was no place else for her.

Would the minister not more seriously, more quickly and with greater immediacy look at the need in our area, and I suspect in other areas as well? He is not going to solve the problem of the shortage of active hospital beds if he does not deal with the chronic and nursing home problem.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I did not deny there is a problem and that there is a need for more nursing home and chronic beds in the province. I point out, though, that one has to be careful about accepting all waiting lists and waiting periods at face value. Sometimes they do not bear up under close scrutiny. I caution the member on that.

As I say, I am not denying it. We have a request currently before Management Board for approval of allocations in this fiscal year for both nursing home and chronic care beds. As soon as I have those, I will be in a position to make appropriate decisions.

The member is right in saying there are other areas of need. The Bruce Peninsula is another one that comes to mind --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

STATUS OF AGRICULTURE INSPECTORS

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) promised to be in the House for my question, but I do not see him.

Mr. Speaker: Maybe you can ask somebody else.

Mr. Swart: Perhaps I will put the question to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay). I wonder whether the minister can explain why eight regular summer employees --

Mr. Eakins: Here he is; change it.

Mr. Swart: May I change it, then, as the Minister of Agriculture and Food has come in, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I would just direct your attention to the clock.

Mr. Swart: I will pose my question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food while he is coming to his seat. I wonder whether he will explain why eight regular summer employees of his ministry at Vineland were told at the beginning of the past summer that they would not be re-engaged this year as ministry employees but would have to go on contract if they wanted to work, even though they were doing exactly the same kind of inspection work they had been doing in previous years. They were told these orders came from the ministry's office at Queen's Park.

As a result of this contracting out they lost their workers' compensation, Canada pension and unemployment insurance benefits as well as their seniority rights.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Swart: Is the minister aware that the Department of National Revenue ultimately ruled that one must pay into the Canada pension plan and that they won, retroactively, their workers' compensation coverage?

Will the minister explain why this contracting out took place, why these employees should be the sacrificial lambs in his ministry's policy to try to cut down on the number of its employees, and do it by contracting out? Will he reconsider and retroactively try to get these employees reinstated under the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission so they can draw their unemployment insurance benefits?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: First, Mr. Speaker, I am going to take the question as notice. I have a vague recollection of some of the facts about it. It was six months ago and I wish the honourable member had raised it at that time. I will get an answer to the member. I want to emphasize, though, that in terms of the inspection work they did, that did carry on. The services of the ministry were not affected.

As I say, I cannot recall all the details. I would rather get the information and give the member a complete answer. I will take the question as notice this morning. I realize the House will likely rise today, but I will get him an answer in writing as soon as possible.

RESPONSES BY MINISTERS

Mr. Philip: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: On November 9, I put a question on the order paper concerning the transfer of certain contract employees when certain ministers, such as the member for London South (Mr. Walker), transferred their portfolios. Under standing order 81(d), the minister is required to provide at least an interim reply within 14 days. I have not even had the courtesy of an interim reply.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the minister will take notice of your request and will respond.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to bring to your attention that on three occasions during the past couple of months, one as early as the middle of October, I asked a question of a minister who said in the House that he would respond quickly.

I asked one question of the member for Armourdale (Mr. McCaffrey), which was to be passed on. I have asked two of the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea), one as recently as last week, which he committed himself to answer either Monday or Tuesday of this week.

I have had no answers to any of those questions. I have no means now, with the House being prorogued, to get those answers. I wonder whether you can look into what my rights and privileges are as a member in terms of a commitment to respond, made in the House, that has not been followed up.

11:40 a.m.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure you are well aware that is beyond my authority and jurisdiction. However, I assume the minister will take notice of your remarks. Perhaps he will contact you directly.

PETITIONS

TOXIC WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Toronto health department's recommendation yesterday to have the Canadian General Electric plant shut immediately to prevent the spread of polychlorinated biphenyls, this petition is very apt. It reads:

"To the Lieutenant Governor and the members of the Legislature of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned residents, demand that your ministry test immediately for PCBs, polychlorinated biphenyls, contamination in our soil and sewers, and in the ground of those companies which have used PCBs in their production. Since PCBs are extremely dangerous to human health and their use is now outlawed, we want you:

"1. To inform all chemical companies in our neighbourhood immediately to remove their stored PCB waste; and

"2. To remove and destroy all PCB-contaminated soil.

"A simple fire in any of these PCB storage sheds would cause another Mississauga-like disaster with catastrophic effects on our health."

NURSING HOME LAYOFFS

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I have several hundred names on a petition, similar to the one brought in last week, from friends and people concerned about what has happened at Ballycliffe Lodge and Kennedy Lodge Nursing Homes. I will not read the whole thing, just the final part of the petition, because I have read it into the record before.

"We petition as follows:

"That the government of Ontario amend the Ontario Labour Relations Act to stop the practice of contracting out work that could be performed by existing employees; and

"That the government of Ontario intervene on behalf of these 32 employees to protect the employment status of these workers."

It was appropriately made out to the Lieutenant Governor. I would like to table it now.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Barlow from the standing committee on resources development presented a report and moved its adoption.

Mr. Barlow: Mr. Speaker, this is actually the second final report. The first one was produced the other day in the local press.

The standing committee on resources development considered the report, Reshaping Workers' Compensation for Ontario, prepared by Professor Paul Weiler for the Minister of Labour and the related white paper on the Workers' Compensation Act which represents the response of the Ministry of Labour to Professor Weiler's report.

In considering these two documents, the committee focused its attention on the 21 major proposals of the white paper which comprised

part 1 of the report. Other matters relating to workers compensation, such as the treatment of existing claims, rehabilitation, retraining, right of action, some of which are mentioned either in Professor Weiler's report or in the white paper, were brought to the attention of the committee and are dealt with in

part 2 of the report.

The report reflects written submissions, presentations and related discussions associated with some 53 organizations or agencies and nine private citizens who appeared before the resources development committee. Hearings were held in two phases, during September 1982 and in April through to June 1983. They included the history-making meeting on the steps of this Legislature.

Following the conclusion of the public hearings in June 1983, the committee held 23 days of in-camera deliberations in July, September, November and December of this year to formulate this report.

As a result of this thorough review, the committee is convinced that the white paper and Weiler proposals for reform constitute a worthwhile and integrated reform package. While the committee has modified some of the proposals, the basic integrity of this comprehensive package for reform remains intact. The committee recognizes that all the 21 white paper proposals are important. However, proposals 1 through 4 and proposal 7, in particular, are recognized as being critical in establishing a new and more equitable basis for the compensation of injured workers and their dependants or survivors.

Many of the 21 proposals which relate to Workers' Compensation Board administration practices, particularly those relating to the establishment of independent appeal and medical review bodies, should serve to make board practices more open to external review and participation.

The committee is confident these procedures will provide improved mechanisms for the resolution of sensitive cases demanding careful consideration and judgement. Because of these extensive deliberations, a majority of committee members believe the white paper proposals for reshaping workers' compensation will result in significant improvement in compensation for work-related injuries in Ontario.

A majority of committee members also believe the new compensation system will result in an equitable and fair adjustment of assessments. We believe that under the new compensation system the employer will be under strong financial pressure to reduce the incidence of work place injuries in that proposal 17 recommends a mandatory experience rating plan.

The committee looks forward to a positive response to this reshaping of the workers' compensation system from the Minister of Labour and from the government.

On motion by Mr. Barlow, the debate was adjourned.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege or perhaps it is even a point of view: I wonder if the chairman of the standing resources development committee would ensure that a copy of this report gets to every member's office today; not just to the mailboxes, because I think most members will get a lot of requests or queries about the report during the next few weeks.

Mr. Barlow: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to have that accomplished.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments and the standing committee on resources development be authorized to meet today.

Motion agreed to.

HOUSE SITTING

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the House sit beyond 1 p.m. today to complete its business.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

LIMITATIONS ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Wells, first reading of Bill 160,

An Act to revise the Limitations Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move first reading of a new Limitations Act for Ontario. This bill has been a long time in development. Its origins go back to the report on limitations of actions published in 1969 by the Ontario Law Reform Commission. As an aside, I recall that the first question I was asked as Attorney General by Vern Singer back in 1975 was about when we were going to introduce this new Limitations Act.

There have been many developments in the law since that time, and the bill also draws on developments in other jurisdictions, on the work of the Uniform Law Conference of Canada and discussion of the draft Limitations Act which was circulated for comment by my ministry several years ago.

11:50 a.m.

The purpose of the new Limitations Act is to consolidate, rationalize and clarify the law relating to limitation of actions. This is a major step in making the law simpler and more accessible to the average citizen. In the future, the Limitations Act will be the repository of all limitation periods affecting the bringing of actions in the courts of Ontario. Many special limitation periods that now exist in statutes other than the Limitations Act will be repealed. Others that are required to be kept for a variety of reasons will be required to be scheduled to the new Limitations Act in order to be effective.

One of the most significant reforms in the bill is the provision that in respect of certain types of action, including personal injury and property damage actions, time will not run out until a potential plaintiff has sufficient information to know he or she has the right to bring an action. In addition, the bill contains a general provision about liability that applies to all types of actions. Time will not run out against someone who is under a legal disability such as mental incapacity or minority. Never again will anyone in Ontario lose the opportunity to bring a law suit before he or she can reasonably be expected to know the right to bring it exists.

I might mention very briefly a few other features of the bill. In the future, the crown will be bound by limitation periods. Provision is made in the bill, in accordance with the recommendations of the Ontario Law Reform Commission, for the elimination of the acquisition of easements in land through length of possession. This will simplify transactions involving real property.

In addition to these, there are many other provisions in the bill that modernize and clarify many technical aspects of the law of limitations. I look forward to detailed consideration of the bill by this assembly later today.

Mr. Nixon: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker: I know the Attorney General is in his usual good humour, so I thought I should tell you, sir, in his presence, that he mentioned Vern Singer's interest in limitations and in statutes pertaining to them. I understand Mr. Singer is approaching statutory retirement in his appointment to the Ontario Municipal Board.

If, in fact, his appointment is allowed to run out, he is looking forward to contesting the Liberal nomination in Wilson Heights. Under the circumstances, therefore, I suggest his appointment might be extended for 25 years just to keep the incumbent there in his seat in as safe a position as he possibly can be, even though it is precarious at the best of times.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I would indicate to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk I would be more than delighted to have a rematch with the former honourable member in my riding, if that is the situation. I have no fear of him whatsoever.

Mr. Cureatz: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I am confident the Attorney General will be providing all lawyers of the assembly with some detailed information about the bill he is going to be passing so soon this afternoon. Will he not be?

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MALTON MEMORIAL RECREATION ASSOCIATION ACT

Mr. Jones moved second reading of Bill Pr30,

An Act to revive the Malton Memorial Recreation Association.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF NORTH YORK ACT

Mr. Williams moved second reading of Bill Pr51,

An Act respecting the City of North York.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

TECO MINES AND OILS LIMITED ACT

Mr. Cureatz moved second reading of Bill Pr52,

An Act to revive Teco Mines and Oils Limited.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF OWEN SOUND ACT

Mr. Nixon moved, on behalf of Mr. Sargent, second reading of Bill Pr53,

An Act respecting the City of Owen Sound.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Ramsay, resolution 15.

Reading dispensed with [see Votes and Proceedings].

Hon. Mr. Wells moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Ramsay, the resolution be amended by inserting "the committee shall have authority to adjourn from place to place in Ontario" at the end of the eighth paragraph.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Ramsay, resolution 16.

Reading dispensed with [see Votes and Proceedings].

Motion agreed to.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

Hon. Mr. Wells moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Eaton, resolution 17.

Reading dispensed with [see Votes and Proceedings].

Motion agreed to.

STATUS OF BILL

Hon. Mr. Wells moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Eaton, resolution 18.

Reading dispensed with [see Votes and Proceedings].

Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Eaton, resolution 19.

Reading dispensed with [see Votes and Proceedings].

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIPS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Eaton, resolution 20.

Reading dispensed with [see Votes and Proceedings].

Motion agreed to.

STATUS OF REPORTS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Eaton, resolution 21.

Reading dispensed with [see Votes and Proceedings].

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: On page 16 of the order paper, a motion for the production of papers in the name of the member for Victoria Haliburton (Mr. Eakins) calls for the tabling of a report on the feasibility of an employee buyout of White Farm Equipment Canada Ltd. This is a report that was paid for by the government. It is in the hands of the United Auto Workers and there was some indication that report could be tabled. This motion has been on the order paper now for many weeks.

We would certainly hope that the government House leader would take some notice of it so that this document would be made available to the citizens interested in the future of White Farm Equipment.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, notice has been taken.

12 noon

BARRIE-VESPRA ANNEXATION ACT (CONCLUDED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 142,

An Act respecting the City of Barrie and the Township of Vespra.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker. I am getting lots of good advice today on things I might say.

Mr. Nixon: Perhaps I could assist in the advice.

Mr. Breaugh: I am sure my friend will.

I had an opportunity to begin my remarks yesterday and to get the introduction on the record.

Mr. Kerrio: We thought you were up to the "in conclusion" part.

Mr. Breaugh: The member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) seems to be back in his proper place today. I am pleased to see him.

Mr. Kerrio: He is always in his place.

Mr. Breaugh: I think the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) is correct. My friend is about the worst heckler in here.

Mr. Kerrio: Well, you give me cause.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Breaugh: We had an opportunity last evening, during the course of the estimates of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett), to listen to the minister himself, not his parliamentary assistant, provide more detail to the members on why this bill is here. As the minister went on at some length about the purpose and the details of the bill, it became more and more evident the government's real agenda in proposing this bill is to bludgeon one or both of the parties into a settlement.

One of the difficulties that opposition members have, of course, is that we do not get to hang around the back rooms of Queen's Park where the real agendas are established. We are forced by precedents here and the traditions of parliament to believe that when a government prints up a bill and puts in writing what its intentions are those are the intentions of the government.

As we listened last night to the minister state the real agenda, it became more and more apparent to me that what is printed in the bill has very little to do with the intentions of the government; so we are at a bit of a loss here, in a bit of a quandary.

As we went through each of the principles that were enunciated in the bill, the minister repeatedly said, "Well, we do not really mean January 1, but we had to put a date in." So that is over. As we talked about the boundaries, he said, "We do not really mean those boundaries, but we will figure that out somewhere later on." As we talked about financial concessions that might be made on both sides, he said, "Well, we do not really know yet; we will figure that out as we go along."

When we get right down to it, we are debating a bill that is not going to happen, at least not in the form in which it is printed, and we are going to have to come back in the spring session of the Legislature and debate it all over again.

I am faced with a bit of a quandary. There is not much sense in debating a bill when the minister presents it in the Legislature, makes a statement, has the Legislature print it all up and says, "This is what you are talking about, boys," then goes off into estimates and says: "But that is not what we are talking about, boys. We will tell you later what the real agenda is."

I think we are really faced with no choice on the matter. This bill is going out for hearings during January, and perhaps somewhere in the course of three weeks of committee hearings we will find out what the government really intends to do about this very vexing problem in Barrie and Vespra.

It is my hope that during the course of those hearings we will get the government to come clean as to its real intentions with this annexation. Perhaps we will get a clear idea of just whom they intend to bludgeon, because it is now apparent that somebody is going to get hammered, though we do not quite know who the victim will be just yet.

I will wait until the committee hearings have concluded, and then I will attempt to make a good guess in the spring session as to what the government really means when it prints up its second bill dealing with the Barrie-Vespra annexation.

I find it unfortunate that members of the Legislature are forced by tradition to believe that when a government prints a bill, that is exactly what it means to do, and then to hear during estimates and, I imagine, in subsequent debates today that this is not really what the government had in mind. It becomes very difficult for us to pick which agenda the government is actually moving on in the course of this debate.

It seems to me that there is not a great deal of sense in prolonging a debate on a bill on which the government has already admitted it really does not intend to proceed along those lines, despite the fact that it went to all the trouble of printing the bill and going into some detail in statements by the minister and in compendiums to the bill as to exactly what the bill means and exactly what the government intends to do.

In estimates last night the minister made it quite clear that is not what they want to do, that is not the date they are going to use, that is not the boundary that will be the final solution. I am not an advocate of great theoretical debates and I do not want to pursue it any longer, but I do anticipate that during the course of the hearings in the standing committee on general government we will be allowed some glimpse of the government's real intentions.

Perhaps in the spring session of the Legislature we will get a bill which says what it is the government wants to do, as opposed to this bill, which appears to be some kind of bludgeon that it is going to use on one of these municipalities.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the two critics of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) and the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh). Naturally, I listened to their comments with some interest. It is unfortunate that their knowledge of the situation is so minimal, as is their knowledge of the history of the area and their knowledge of what they think is best for the area.

I make those comments knowing the member for Waterloo North comes from an area that has set the mark, I think historically, for the number of annexations. He knows the total history and pattern of annexations in that area. He probably participated in many of them as a municipal councillor and knows the total background of such events.

Also, I listened to the member for Oshawa talk about the history of the area. I remember he quoted different features of this legislation. I recall very vividly that he supported a piece of legislation by one of his colleagues. Indeed, it did much the same thing but did not provide any method or mechanisms for hearings so there could be input.

I think both of them do a disservice to this Legislature when they comment that the hearings will provide nothing, that there will be no witnesses and that if they do add information, it will not be listened to. Indeed, if they say and believe this, then surely they must believe all those other committees which they ask for are not worth while either. I think their comments do not have, in my mind anyway, a great deal of validity.

This legislation has the support of cabinet, myself and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Mr. Wildman: We didn't think it would be introduced if it didn't have the support of cabinet.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: I have followed this subject in the area for some 10 years while it was going on. There have been 10 years of dispute, 10 years when the major benefactors have been the lawyers and planners. There have been 10 years of unsettled progress and 10 years of lost opportunities. I say it is a minimum of 10 years, because it has been going on much longer than that.

It has been going on to such an extent that it has formed one of the longest and costliest Ontario Municipal Board hearings in history. It has, on procedural matters singularly, gone to the Supreme Court of Canada. When it arrived back, the 0MB made two decisions on the merits. It has drawn much the same lines and considered the same geographical areas.

What it boils down to is that when it is finished we have one decision that has been decided many times on the merits by the local councillors, by the Simcoe-Georgian Area Task Force and by the Toronto-centred region plan, the design for an expansion of the urban area known as Barrie.

This matter has had many opportunities for discussion for settlement. I and previous ministers of housing have sat down with the individuals on all councils and suggested methods of settlement and offered opportunities for settlement. They have not been accepted.

12:10 p.m.

Throughout the litigation in the same process, because of this instance, we had to bring in new legislation. I am sure the new legislation, as it was debated here, also has to have a certain amount of goodwill, understanding and compliance or it will not work.

The minister, who is more familiar with these types of situations throughout the province, has indicated from his knowledge of the situation that the parties will not talk, will not negotiate, and will not look toward settlement of the matter, but will litigate.

When I look upon the history of the matter and I hear the percentages that have been used about the commercial area and the assessment, when this area was developing -- we are talking about the late 1960s -- the urban municipality of Barrie decided that certain functions had to be carried out in the downtown core and certain malls had to be progressed within their economic ability and what they thought was good planning. Naturally enough, the developers thought, "We will put our malls right across the border or right across the street."

When we talk about 90 per cent of the commercial assessment, that is very true. In 1968, they did not have that 90 per cent of commercial assessment. When Barrie was saying, "Do not put it in the urban area and do not put it outside," Vespra and the developers decided to put it right on the border in competition with those inside.

The dispute was apparent at that time. It was apparent then that it was not good planning. It was apparent at that time from the studies that were going on by all the local councillors and the Simcoe-Georgian Area Task Force that undoubtedly and inevitably the area would become part of the urban area of Barrie. Indeed, that has been the policy of the provincial government for some considerable period of time. As Barrie expands the urban core, it provides the services. Many of the services are there waiting to go into the new area.

The process has undoubtedly been unsettling for the area. We look at the traffic problems on the roads; they have been compounded. We look at the landfill sites in this potential area to be annexed. There have been disputes as to where hospitals and schools should be located, as to fires and who should fight them, as to sewers and as to roads and services, all of which disputes should not be. The spirit of co-operation has not been there. There has been a spirit of frustration about some of them. All these features I have mentioned, which are only a few of them, should never have even occurred. There should have been greater goodwill between the councils, and that has not been the case.

When I look at the possibility of commercial development not proceeding -- and there is $20 million or more of commercial development waiting to go -- when I see hospitals that may be delayed, when I see landfill sites that may not be proceeded with and when I see schools that are going to have difficulties, it is very difficult not to support legislation of this type.

I continue on about this particular legislation. As the minister has said, if he had gone the other route, the boundary negotiations legislation, he saw it would be on his desk for final settlement in any event. As the minister said when he explained the legislation to the municipalities, "You have an opportunity even now, before the legislation goes through and is completed, and before the hearings, to draw it to a conclusion, to settle it, to bring some negotiated settlement to it." They will still have that opportunity when they come before the legislative committee. I do not know whether those communities will accept it. I suspect they will not. Therefore, there has to be a time frame.

Since the legislation was introduced, the potential development has already started to move. Those developers will be proceeding with their development, involving some considerable millions of dollars which, if this had gone on, had the potential of being lost. It is for the whole area, not just for Barrie and not just for Vespra. It is for the whole area. That is the central core of Simcoe county. As it develops. the others benefit. Without that benefit, I think we lose for that entire area. It is with the intention of supporting the entire area that I support this legislation.

I am sure when this legislation appears before the committee, my colleagues on the government side of the House and those on the opposite side will listen to the arguments made and will then draw the line between the two municipalities where they think the boundary would be best suited.

As the legislation suggests, the line that is put in the legislation is the maximum amount of land that can be incorporated within the annexed area. They have plenty of opportunity to look at what would be best suited to that area. Much of the land is already owned by the municipality of Barrie. Other land is in hazardous or environmental protection areas. That will not cause them a great deal of concern.

If one looks at who can best service the land and who can best look to the future benefits of that land, all the participants will recognize that for the good, the potential and the benefit of the area, this legislation suits the majority of the people. I am sure the compensation package the minister will look at later will provide adequately for individuals who think for some reason they will be less than adequately compensated by this legislation.

Many of the legislative policies, the taxing policies and grants for both the urban and rural areas recognize those two features of urban and rural. In this situation, what is recognized as a rural community, Vespra, is taking on the aspects of an urban municipality. It is in the historical pattern in this province that it will soon become part of the urban area.

Those are my few comments on this legislation. As it proceeds to committee and then back to the Legislature in the spring for third reading, there will be ample opportunity for anybody who has concerns to put them to the committee. I am sure the committee members will listen and make their decision on that material.

For the potential of the area, the matter has to be resolved. This method of resolution has some finality to it, compared to spreading our money throughout the court systems of this jurisdiction, which will bring no finality but will provide great compensation for the lawyers.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, the main question before us is, why this process? If it were a new application for annexation, it would be under the Municipal Boundary Negotiations Act. But this application was first made seven years ago. There have been seven years of bitterness arising out of disputes. There is no advantage now to going through the voluntary negotiation process. It is clear that process will not work. It is clear there will be no voluntary agreement and the negotiation process will accomplish nothing but a waste of some more time.

The negotiation process has been proceeding, although somewhat informally, over the past number of years. The politicians and the staff have been involved, and I have been involved. In our opinion, further voluntary negotiations will accomplish nothing. We want this dispute to come to a conclusion, and we want to have full and complete public hearings at the committee meetings next month because we feel this is the best democratic process to bring the matter to conclusion.

As the minister said in his opening address, the boundary in this act is the maximum amount that will be annexed. The committee will hear all interested parties and it will make a decision as to what the boundary shall be.

As to the dates, as I said in this House on Tuesday and as the minister said in estimates last night, absolutely nothing can take effect until there has been third reading and royal assent has been given to this bill. There will be business as usual on January 1. Nothing will be changed by a second reading of the bill, because second reading has no authority in law. We want the date to be set by the committee.

After all the other matters are settled, we hope the two municipalities will be able to agree on an effective date. If they do, it will be put into the bill. If they do not, then the committee will have to select a date, the best date for an orderly, smooth transition of whatever area is to be annexed. The date will not be retroactive unless both municipalities want it to be retroactive before third reading debate in this House.

12:20 p.m.

The members opposite have taken issue with a number of details of the bill. In view of the time and the day, I will not discuss those now, but there will be full opportunity to discuss the details of the bill in committee.

As far as I am concerned this process, the second reading of the bill, which is almost like a white paper but in a form that makes it mandatory for discussion, and full open hearings in the committee are the only way we will get all the parties to sit down and seriously negotiate all the details in full, open public hearings.

I am now committing myself, my ministry and the government to listen at those open hearings and to make changes and amendments as required.

I think the members opposite will remember that we spent all of the summer of 1982 in similar hearings after second reading of the Planning Act. The member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) and the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden), who is here, will remember that the government listened, the government made many amendments as proposed by the