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

November 24, 1981

32nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

FOREIGN INTERFERENCE

BOXING GOLD MEDAL

ESTABLISHED PROGRAM FUNDING

HANSARD INTERJECTIONS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

INSTITUTE FOR HYDROGEN AND ELECTROCHEMICAL SYSTEMS

TRIBUTES TO ALAN ALBERT RUSSELL

ORAL QUESTIONS

ASSISTANCE TO ELDERLY WOMEN

ONTARIO ENERGY INVESTMENT

AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY

BILD PROGRAM

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN COLLECTION

IRWIN TOY DISPUTE

HYDRO SERVICE

OHIP COVERAGE

FOREIGN INTERFERENCE

COMPENDIUM REQUIREMENT

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN COLLECTION

MOTIONS

ESTIMATES

PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TRIBUNALS CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT

SUCCESSION LAW ACT

ANSWER TO QUESTION ON NOTICE PAPER

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAMENDMENT ACT

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY NEGOTIATIONS ACT

The House met at 2:02 p.m.

Prayers.

FOREIGN INTERFERENCE

Mr. Shymko: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege on a matter which is so serious to me that I would like to have the opportunity in the life of this parliament to address my honourable colleagues. I certainly would be most willing to even be deprived of opportunities to speak in the future, to be given the time to address this House today.

We have parliamentary immunity in this chamber to speak freely and express our opinions, but we also have the right to speak outside of this chamber in freedom.

The concern I have is that it was not very long ago the honourable member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) addressed this assembly about the need to extend the mandate of the Ombudsman committee to include the discussion of human rights. I know there are many honourable members who are concerned about the violation of human rights in many parts of the world, and if there is to be an open discussion inside or outside committees and if foreign governments are to interfere in such a vicious manner to try to psychologically blackmail an individual from speaking out, I would like to have the support of my colleagues.

This publication, side by side with the first

article that appeared --

Mr. Bradley: My local newspaper does that to me.

Mr. Shymko: The difference is that we have an opportunity to sue for libel against any publication that speaks in a defamatory manner here in Canada, but I cannot challenge this type of attack against me or against any member of this Legislature in court.

I have consulted the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) and the office of the Premier (Mr. Davis), and I have thought about whether or not I should raise this issue on a point of privilege, because my safety and the safety of my family are threatened through the allegations that you read. The first article, called The Career of a Politico, published two weeks before the federal election in 1979, was the first vicious attack. In consultation I was told not to raise this issue, not to spread this hatred beyond the limits of this publication. I did not.

On June 6, 1979,1 was approached by the first secretary of the Soviet Embassy in Ottawa and the representatives of Novosti Press, Izvestia and Pravda. They told me frankly that I should never run in an election in this country. They interfered directly by dictating to me that I not become involved in the free electoral process.

I thought this matter had been cleared up. And yet after the provincial election the second article, called The True Face of Mr. Shymko, appeared recently, distributed once again to defame me in a most violent manner by comparing me to criminals and assassins. In all conscience I cannot remain silent on this issue, because by remaining silent I would become a partner to the lies and deceit of these publications.

I know there are members in this House who are very concerned about the violation of human rights in other parts of the world. I have had an opportunity to listen to the concerns of the member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis), who is concerned about the violation of human rights in places like Haiti. I have listened to the concerns in committees and in personal discussions that the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps), for example, has about the policies in South Africa.

If in voicing these concerns I am, or any of these members is, subjected by a foreign power to the distribution of this kind of hatred to silence us, the only recourse we have, since we do not have it in the courts, is to speak in this assembly. I ask to have the support of my colleagues, the Attorney General and the Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Baetz), because this literature is found in all the libraries of this province: it is found in at least four libraries I have personally visited in the city of Toronto, including the main library.

I cannot understand why they would have done this except through their constant reference to a publication I prepared and delivered to the president of the United Nations General Assembly in the fall of 1978 entitled A Resolution Concerning the Decolonization of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. They make constant reference to this.

In these papers, right beside the first attack on me, is a vicious anti-Semitic article, which maligns such distinguished members of our society as Phil Givens and makes constant attacks on individuals, organizations and institutions. But the viciousness of the anti-Semitism, for example, that is printed in this publication, is astonishing. And it has thousands of copies distributed by our post office through registration number "8856 news."

2:10 p.m.

I do not know who pays for this; apparently it is shipped from East Berlin. We do not know the exact circulation figure of this publication. It is as vicious as the Ku Klux Klan. Members may recall that when I personally objected to the KKK message being voiced over 11 radio stations in Ontario, the Premier's office received a letter from one of the prominent stations asking that I be fired from the advisory council because I spoke out.

At least I can speak and I can raise this issue with Canadian organizations. I have no such recourse in this case. I ask the Attorney General to assist me, as I have requested, by meeting with the federal Solicitor General, to look at the hate literature criteria that we have, and to see whether I can have some assistance.

In conclusion, there is a release from the United States embassy in Ottawa, dated October 9, 1980. I would like to quote from a text entitled Publication from the US State Department document called Soviet 'Active Measures' -- Forgery, Disinformation, Political Operations. In it, specifically, is the only rationale I have for this. They refer specifically to this type of operation being carried on at the highest level. The program of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, The KGB, showed an example of that operation, and said that recently there has been a stream of these Soviet active measures, called in Russian, Aktivniye Meropriyatia.

It says, one, "The approach used by the Soviet government includes outright and partial forgery of documents, the use of rumours, insinuations, altered facts and lies," which this

article is;

Two, "The activities are designed and executed by a large and complex bureaucracy, in which the KGB and the International Department of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Central Committee are major elements," which points to direct intervention about my person by the representatives of the Soviet embassy;

Three, "Moscow seeks to discredit opponents of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, those who are critical of human rights and other areas, and to undermine these individuals, the institutions and their values;

Four, "They use as provocations, Soviet friendship and cultural societies." The society that publishes this is called the Association for Cultural Relations with Ukrainians Abroad. They use these organizations to oppose policies in individuals and leaders in governments whose activities do not serve the Soviet interests;

Five, "In some cases the operations have failed because targeted individuals," such as myself and others, "or governments, have responded effectively," which I am trying to do on this point of privilege.

It continues: "However, these Soviet active measures have had some success and they remain a major, if little understood, element of Soviet foreign policy. Unless the targets of Soviet active measures take effective action to counter them, these activities will continue."

In conclusion, there is a philosophy I hold and it is one that is shared by everyone here. In trying to understand the rationale of attacking me as viciously as I have been attacked, when a person passionately believes that justice, equality, tolerance, compassion, liberty and peace are not visions but attainable goals, this is a faith in man's ability to conquer all things as well as his own limitations.

It poses mighty challenges to some governments, such as the Solidarity movement that threatens those established powers based on force, to control the destiny of man. I see no other reason why someone like myself, and other members in the future, would be threatened by foreign governments.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable member has raised his point of privilege, without making a major speech, and I thank him for drawing this to the attention of all the members.

Mr. Sargent: It was a setup. He set it up. He cleared this with the House before he started, didn't he?

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a point of privilege?

Mr. Sargent: Yes. In 20 years I have never seen anything like this, where the Speaker allows a guy to go on like that.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

BOXING GOLD MEDAL

Mr. Speaker: Before the routine proceedings, I would like to take this opportunity to introduce to all members of the House, and ask all members of the House to join me in welcoming Mr. Shawn O'Sullivan, who is the winner of the gold medal for amateur boxing in the World Cup boxing championships. He is accompanied by his parents, Mr. and Mrs. Michael O'Sullivan, his trainers, Mr. Peter Wylie and Mr. Ken Hamilton, and many friends of the Cabbagetown Youth Centre.

I would ask all members to recognize them.

Mrs. Scrivener: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Members will be pleased to know Shawn O'Sullivan is the first Canadian to win the gold medal in 49 years. Nineteen years old, he is a student at the University of Toronto. Absent today is John Raftery, a student at Queen's University, who won the bronze medal in his class. His brother Barry is here to represent him today.

Through their skill and courage both young men have brought great honour to this province and to the Cabbagetown Youth Centre where they received their training. They are an inspiration to the hundreds of young people who engage in a variety of sports programs at the Cabbagetown centre. The programs and the centre were funded through Wintario grants given through the Ministry of Culture and Recreation. It is interesting to note that Peter Wylie, the trainer for Shawn and John, is a member of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force emergency task force.

Mr. Hennessy: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Breithaupt: Don't tell him he may end up like you.

Mr. Hennessy: No way.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Shawn O'Sullivan. It is a very difficult sport. One has to participate in it to realize the effort one has to make to win a championship. I was fortunate enough to represent Canada at the Olympics. There are a lot of sacrifices one has to make to be a champion --

An hon. member: See what it did to you.

Mr. Hennessy: The member is all right with his mouth. I know Shawn is a very dedicated performer. I would like to tell Peter Wylie, Ken Hamilton and his mother and father, who took a great interest in the young man's future, that he has a good career in front of him. We all wish him the very best. He brought honour to Ontario and to Canada by winning the gold medal.

ESTABLISHED PROGRAM FUNDING

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I am sorry the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Miss Stephenson) is not here. I waited to see if she would come in. I wish to correct the record with reference to the minister's statement in the House yesterday. I quote briefly the statement she made, "Over the last few years of the term of the agreement on established program funding, the federal contribution to health and post-secondary education in this province has been only a little over 44 per cent of the total amount contributed to those two sectors."

In fact, the minister has made two important errors. First, she has ignored the transfer of tax points under EPF, each amounts to $1.6 billion. This is the room that Ottawa has agreed to vacate in order that the province might raise revenue. The Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) himself understood this when he explained in his budget last May that it would be incorrect to include only the cash without acknowledging tax points.

I quote one sentence from the budget, "The growth the provinces receive from EPF," said the Treasurer, "is generated by the tax plus cash total, not the cash component alone. It is the former that has been used in evaluating the financial experience under EPF." Clearly by ignoring these tax points, the minister has made the province's contribution look $1.6 billion greater. If we consider the tax points as part of the federal contribution, which they are, then the federal contribution is not 44 per cent but 68 per cent.

Second, and even less excusable, is the minister's failure to segregate user fees, that is, Ontario health insurance plan fees and tuition costs. out of the province's contribution. User fees for both health and education equal $1.4 billion. When we separate the user fee part of the total provincial expenditure on health and post-secondary education, the respective contributions by both Ottawa and Queen's Park are 85 per cent federal and 15 per cent provincial.

2:20 p.m.

In other words, once we have stripped away the numerical camouflage, the facts show that out of every dollar spent by government for health and post-secondary education here in the province --

Mr. Jones: A little party line.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think you have made your point on correcting the record. Order.

Mr. Wrye: If I just might conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying further on the subject of post-secondary education alone, if you will just bear with me for a second, I am tabling the facts and figures upon which we reached the conclusion that Ontario's share of university funding has fallen to a mere five per cent as of 1981.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, in response may I suggest to the honourable members that sleight-of-hand with figures will simply not wash.

HANSARD INTERJECTIONS

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, you may recall that some time ago, early in the session, I rose on a point of privilege to bring to your attention the manner in which the director of Hansard treats interjections made in the House. You may also recall that the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) joined in the debate and you promised the House you would look into this situation.

The very point I was concerned about has now come to pass. I informed you I was quite concerned about having the director of Hansard put himself in a situation where he must decide whether or not an interjection would appear in Hansard -- namely an interjection coming from the Premier or from a cabinet minister. He may or may not feel some kind of political pressure for not having the interjection recorded in Hansard.

Last Thursday, the Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett) and I engaged in an exchange in the House. I clearly heard the interjections made by the Minister of Housing. I am sure the Hansard reporter on the floor at the time also heard the interjections. It was very important to me to have those interjections appear in Hansard as I wanted the record to show what the Minister of Housing had said. To that end I sent a note to the Hansard reporter on the floor asking if she had heard the interjections.

Today I received a silly memorandum from the director of Hansard informing us, and I quote, "I should point out that members frequently engage in discussions across the floor of the House, and that these are not considered part of the debate." Mr. Speaker, as to the history of the Hansard recordings of this House, this is totally incorrect.

Until recent times the interjections have always formed a part of the debate. In many cases the interjections are just as important as the debate. I find it very offensive that the director of Hansard can put himself in a situation where he does not record things said by the Premier or members of the cabinet. If we, as opposition back-benchers, were put in the same position, could we expect the same treatment? We do not know.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think you have made your point. You did draw this matter to my attention. You may recall in the very incident to which you refer I did not hear what was said. But obviously the two members were becoming quite agitated and I did call the minister to order. To this end, I would just like to point out that all interjections are out of order.

I would like to make another point, the policy of the Hansard Reporting Service, with regard to recording interjections, is similar to that of most other major jurisdictions and is based upon guidelines approved by Mr. Speaker and the Board of Internal Economy. The difficulty of recording and reporting the growing number of interjections has escalated in recent years and after consultation with successive Speakers of the House and Hansard staffs in other jurisdictions, the policy was adopted of recording only those interjections that evoked some response from the member who has the floor and which, as a consequence, form part of the debate.

This policy was discussed extensively at meetings of the members' services committee in the last parliament but despite requests for guidance, there was no general agreement about how interjections should be treated. The committee polled other jurisdictions across Canada and the response indicated most of them were treating the reporting of interjections in much the same way as we do at Queen's Park. No clear agreement or recommendation emerged from that committee and after considerable further deliberation the guidelines now enforced were approved by Mr. Speaker and the Board of Internal Economy. If my memory serves me correctly, it was in November of 1979.

Mr. Nixon: On the point of order if I may, Mr. Speaker: I certainly don't want to question your statement nor indicate a faulty memory on your part because I feel sure you have looked it up very carefully. But as a member of that board, I do not recall ever approving a concept for the recording of interjections other than it is a responsibility of Hansard to take down the words that are spoken.

The only time that cannot be done is when the House becomes more or less a mêlée with people on all sides shouting. In that case, it would be humanly impossible for Hansard to take down all of the pearls that are cast on each side. But in instances where the interjections are clearly made, whether they are in order or not, it was always my understanding they formed a proper part of the record as it would be taken down and printed in Hansard.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that in this House about a year and a half ago, there were some interjections put into the record which were found objectionable by certain members who heard them. At that time the House leader for the government and his colleagues on the Board of Internal Economy decided the best way to eliminate the interjections from being picked up was to remove what we call the garbage track which picked up all the interjections. One did not have to rely on someone taking notes but just go back to the Hansard office and listen to the tapes. The government in its lack of wisdom decided the best way to eliminate the interjections was to remove the garbage track.

I objected to that then because there were a lot of racial slurs going on and I felt we must know who made them. I was the only one who objected to the garbage track being removed from the Legislature.

Mr. Mancini: Could I speak to this, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: It is finished.

Mr. Mancini: On a point of order --

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing out of order. I gave you the information that I had made available to me, based on a decision prior to my occupying this chair. You are out of order.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

INSTITUTE FOR HYDROGEN AND ELECTROCHEMICAL SYSTEMS

Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I am pleased to inform the House that we have entered into a contract with the University of Toronto for planning and development that will lead to the establishment of an Institute for Hydrogen and Electrochemical Systems in Ontario.

I think honourable members will be interested to know the institute we intend to create will be the first of its kind anywhere in the world. We believe it will put us in the vanguard of hydrogen research and lead to Ontario becoming a world leader in the development, marketing and use of these new and exciting technologies.

On several occasions our government has announced its interest and support of the role hydrogen could play for this province. Members may recall that early in the new year we announced our intention to prepare Ontario for the transition to an economic system based increasingly on electrical power and nuclear technology. We outlined the role of the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development in a policy document called "Building Ontario in the 1980s." Stated in that BILD policy framework was our intention to establish an institute for the study and development of hydrogen systems.

2:30 p.m.

In the speech from the throne on April 21, 1981, we reaffirmed our commitment to the establishment of a hydrogen institute and stated that approaches had been made to the federal government, suggesting a joint funding program. Negotiations are proceeding in this regard at the present time.

Slightly more than a month ago, I tabled a synopsis of the Ontario Hydrogen Energy Task Force. I am sure many members have taken the opportunity to study the synopsis and find it as thought-provoking and timely as I do.

As I told honourable members on October 16, the report of the task force confirms my belief that Ontario is in a strong position to assume the role of world leader in the development of hydrogen energy systems. As a province we have the good fortune of having established an energy mix that could be used to make us masters of the approaching electricity-hydrogen age.

We in this House know we do not have much oil or gas in the province but we do have electricity -- and lots of it -- from hydraulic and nuclear power. This good fortune, coupled with the success of our internationally-renowned Candu reactors, our substantial supply of uranium and our sophisticated manufacturing industries, puts Ontario in an enviable position to expand our use of hydrogen.

For what purpose? First, to build an energy system unique and indigenous to Ontario. Second, many eminent international thinkers say it is the energy system that will be used progressively throughout our planet; Ontario can lead this evolution. That is what excites me the most about the role of hydrogen in this great and wonderful province of ours.

At a time when all the people of the province recognize the importance of environmental quality -- from the quality of the air we breathe to the quality of the lakes in which we swim -- I would be remiss if I did not identify the very positive environmental impact of using hydrogen in place of fossil fuels.

When hydrogen is used as a fuel, the waste produce -- that is, the exhaust -- is simply water. If Ontario can lead the world in using hydrogen, it will also lead the world to a cleaner and brighter future.

As I told the House a month ago, I was very pleased to see that the report of the Ontario Hydrogen Energy Task Force supported my proposal that a hydrogen institute should be established. We expect such an institute will attract experts from around the world to join with Canadians in this task. Their work will put Ontario in the lead in developing the systems to produce, distribute and utilize this new fuel.

The institute will act as a catalyst to mobilize the resources of government, industry and universities. The institute will make every effort to encourage the private sector to enter into joint programs so that products can be developed and manufactured, not only for the Canadian market but for a worldwide market as well.

In other words, we see the role of the institute as paving the way for a new industrial sector in this province, based on hydrogen applications.

The institute will also undertake a coordinating and management role for all future Ontario hydrogen development projects and ensure their integration and co-ordination with my ministry's previously announced alternative fuels program.

As members may recall, it was last October when I announced a 10-point, $165-million program, which included a $75-million, five- year alternative transportation fuels component. We defined a clear role for hydrogen in the transportation sector, which has been confirmed by the conclusions of the hydrogen task force.

The task force concluded that the cost of hydrogen is projected to escalate more slowly than forecast Ontario prices for carbon-based fuels; thus, in the long term, the economic prospects for the use of nonfossil-derived hydrogen for transportation are attractive. When one considers that transportation accounts for 50 per cent of crude oil use in Ontario this is a very exciting concept.

The first major initiative we announced last spring under the alternative transportation fuels program was the signing of a contract with the Urban Transportation and Development Corporation to develop hydrogen storage and fuel systems and then to equip two demonstration transit buses to use the new fuel.

I have said this in the House before but I think it bears repeating in light of today's announcement: It was 75 years ago the government of Ontario anticipated the importance of electricity in a modern society and moved to harness our abundant hydraulic endowment. Eighteen years ago, this government grasped the significance of developing a Canadian nuclear program to secure an indigenous energy base and to further strengthen Ontario's leadership in electricity.

Our hydraulic and nuclear capabilities now place Ontario in a very fortunate position in the electricity-hydrogen age. I wish to refer honourable members to a report called Energy Alternatives, which was prepared by the special committee on alternative energy and oil substitution for the Parliament of Canada in the spring. Here is a quote from that report which I think will be of particular interest to all of us in the House this afternoon:

"There are two energy currencies which can be derived from all the alternative energy sources which we (the special committee on alternative energy and oil substitution) have considered. They are electricity and hydrogen. We see these two currencies dominating Canada's energy mix in the long term because they satisfy our criteria for determining the direction a new energy policy should take."

I hope all members will join with me in wishing the planning group for the Institute for Hydrogen and Electrochemical Systems well as they undertake the very important task of setting up the institute over the next six months. The group will be led by Dr. David Scott, who has just completed a five-year term as chairman of the department of mechanical engineering at the University of Toronto. Some honourable members may already be aware of Dr. Scott's impressive qualifications and keen interest in the development of hydrogen.

I believe this announcement today is one more example of this government's commitment to a secure energy future for Ontario, its stated intention to lessen our dependency on crude oil, its commitment to encourage new high-technology industries and its concern for our environment. The establishment of this institute, I believe, will be seen in time as one of the most important and far-reaching energy undertakings ever made by any provincial government in Canada.

TRIBUTES TO ALAN ALBERT RUSSELL

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, it is with deep sadness that I inform members of the Legislature of the death of Alan Albert Russell, QC, who served this province with dedication and commitment for 30 years.

Mr. Russell, a University of Toronto graduate, served with the Canadian Army in the Second World War, before joining Ontario's civil service. He served as solicitor to the inspector of legal offices, as inspector of legal offices himself, as an assistant Deputy Attorney General, and he was Deputy Solicitor General before his retirement at the end of 1979.

In addition, Mr. Russell was an active member of the Canadian Bar Association and the St. John Ambulance, and was first vice-president of the Civil Service Quarter Century Club.

Working in all parts of the province, Alan Russell was unstinting in his service to the citizens of Ontario. He was a humane and compassionate man who earned the respect of all of those who were privileged to work with him and to know him. His delightful and very special sense of humour was always an important and effective ingredient in the undertaking of his many vital tasks.

We are indeed all indebted to him. I am sure all members of this House will join me in offering condolences to his wife, Nora, and other members of his family.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the condolences that we bring from this side of the House, may I say that I got to know Alan Russell rather well over the years. We served together on the provincial finance committee for the Order of St. John.

He was, as the Attorney General mentioned, a very humane and compassionate man whose sense of humour and dedication, particularly to that area in which I knew him, was unsurpassed. Indeed, he was a fine public servant. He will be missed not only in the other activities but also by many friends who will be shocked and saddened by his sudden passing.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I wish to add my voice on behalf of the New Democratic Party in extending condolences to the family of Mr. Russell and to express our sorrow with his death and our gratitude for the services he has given to the province.

I know that the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick), who could not be here today, would have wanted to have his voice added as well, as a colleague in the law and because of Mr. Russell's contribution to the law and to this province.

2:40 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kitchener.

[Applause.]

ASSISTANCE TO ELDERLY WOMEN

Mr. Breithaupt: It is all right, Mr. Speaker; they will get used to it. In any event, I will probably get more votes from over there too.

I have a question for the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch), in the absence of the Minister of Community and Social Services, who was in his seat but I guess has left the chamber briefly.

Mr. Breaugh: Here he comes walking through the door now.

Mr. Breithaupt: Then to the minister: The minister is aware from recent press reports, and from yesterday's report by the Ontario Status of Women Council, that some 200,000 elderly women in Ontario suffer the hardship of grinding poverty. He knows that Ontario's meagre dole to the aged widow in Metropolitan Toronto falls some $1,600 short of a decent income, as found by the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto.

What promise will the minister keep in respect to this cry from the poorest of the poor in Ontario? Will he decide to alleviate this suffering and in this case go beyond the inadequate eight per cent increase given November I and enrich Ontario's guaranteed annual income system, family benefits and general welfare payments for this particularly needy group?

Hon. Mr. Drea: First, Mr. Speaker, one of the prime considerations in the social assistance changes in the fall of this year in the category of taking the permanently unemployable person up to the disabled rate was the fact that a large number of the individuals who had been classed at the lower rate as permanently unemployable were in the aged single female category.

Second, I am, and have been for some time, looking at -- I still call it by its old name -- widow's allowance for the female who is classed as a single person for any number of reasons and who is above the age of 60. I want to take a look at that. Quite frankly, I do not think any increase in general welfare assistance would be particularly beneficial to this group.

I think, though, one of the things that should be taken into consideration is that in the larger areas, such as Metro Toronto, a considerable proportion of the needs, particularly in shelter, are met at a reduced rate. So the spread between the poverty line and what they would receive from any combination of social assistances, federal and provincial, is not necessarily accurate.

There is no question either about the inadequacies of both public and private pension plans, in that most of them started after these people were able to get into them, and this is a category we are looking at.

The honourable member also should be aware of the fact that there is a marked discrepancy in terms of the lifespan and the numbers of females, not only those over 65 but also those over 60. However, while we may be able to meet some temporary needs, it is obvious that welfare or social assistance, except in the case of disabled persons, is not really the legitimate answer to this question if those people are to have the type of dignified senior years they should have.

Mr. Breithaupt: May I remind the minister of a statement by the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) several days ago in a dialogue on pension reform? He said:

"First, let us ensure that the problems of the existing elderly, particularly single people, can be taken care of by adjusting income guarantees from guaranteed income supplement and through provincial programs such as Gains. This will be a main priority in our pension reform efforts. Government alone has the responsibility and resources to solve it."

In the light of that statement and in view of the minister's concern for the group that was formerly in the widow's pension class, that is, including single persons as well, will the minister act now and get the Treasurer to encourage an immediate enrichment of provincial aid for the aged widows in particular so they can live in dignity and comfort and so it can be done in 1981, this year, before Christmas? Can we not have some changes at least committed so this problem will be alleviated?

Hon. Mr. Drea: First of all, not all of them qualified because of age for the old age supplement, the guaranteed income supplement or Gains-A, the guaranteed annual income system payment for the aged. This is a perplexing part of the problem because of the arbitrary age delineations for a single person.

I think what the Treasurer was commenting on in the context of those remarks was the period after 65, particularly because of the longevity of the lifespan of the female and the fact, which I think is also well known to all the honourable members, that in terms of being an active, independent person, the female's span is also much greater than that of the male.

The particular aspect the Treasurer raised is one that will have to be addressed. But at the same time there is a limited number who are eligible for social assistance, and that is one of my responsibilities.

I do not think there is any argument in this House that the existing pension plans are not meeting the need. To change both the public and the private plans, there is nothing we can do literally in 60 days that will be meaningful to those whom the member was talking about.

It is the responsibility of this ministry. Indeed, one of the doors we opened in September was that there is no more universality in social assistance. We would have to meet needs based upon the particular segments of the population on a priority basis. We are looking into this question. Our role as a ministry is the only effective way to have a stopgap until the long-term things that are necessary can be brought into place.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary if I can understand all the mishmash from the minister.

If the minister is looking for something he can do within 60 days, why does he not implement the recommendation of the select committee on pensions that the single Gains rates should be increased to 60 per cent of the married rate to get the singles on Gains in this province above the poverty line? Is that beyond the government's capacity?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, this is the second time that this honourable member has addressed a question to me knowing it is outside my jurisdiction. The first time the question of the Gains-A payments came up was three or four weeks ago. When I asked the member afterwards why he would ask me, he said it was because the Speaker would not let him ask the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe).

The payments and determinations under Gains-A are in the jurisdiction of the Minister of Revenue. They are not part of my ministry.

Mr. McClellan: Never mind the crocodile tears.

Mr. Cassidy: What a government! Are you responsible or not?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I have the greatest of difficulty in here. As I said before when this very thing was asked, I cannot speak for the Minister of Revenue.

Mr. Peterson: If I may, Mr. Speaker, I wish to redirect my question to the Premier, because each minister asked about this question seems to try to slough off the responsibility to someone else. It is obvious, if people are not being looked after under Gains or GIS, that they end up as cases for the Ministry of Community and Social Services, but each minister is passing the buck.

In view of the Haley commission's report and the select committee's recommendations on this subject, why does the government not move tomorrow on Gains so that at least we can rectify to some small extent the problem we are all so very aware of?

Mr. Speaker: I respectfully suggest that question was out of order. You cannot redirect.

Mr. Peterson: Then why did I waste all that energy?

Mr. McClellan: When it was also my question.

Mr. Speaker: Indeed.

2:50 p.m.

ONTARIO ENERGY INVESTMENT

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, who will recall the comments made Thursday last. In lauding the many virtues of the Suncor purchase, he mentioned an upgrading of Suncor's Sarnia refinery. At that time the minister said that some $350 million was to be expended on that project, all of which was made possible, in his own words, "because of the Canadianization of the company, and we are involved in that."

I ask the minister, however, whether he is aware that Suncor had made a commitment to the federal government as early as May 1980 to upgrade its Sarnia refinery and that the decision was made to upgrade because of the necessity to phase down the production of heavy oil; it had nothing to do with Canadianization. Why does the minister take credit when the credit belongs to someone else?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I am at some disadvantage in that I do not have the Suncor press release here. I sense that the honourable member asking the question does. If he will read, I think, the second paragraph of the Suncor release itself -- because that was the source of my comments in that debate -- he will find that it talks about $1.5 billion over three years. They earmarked the $350 million for the refinery.

In that second paragraph, if memory serves me correctly, they attribute their involvement in this increased rate of investment to a couple of factors; one was the more favourable terms under the Canada-Alberta agreement, and the second was that the company was now on its way to Canadianization. They attributed their interest in making these substantially increased investments in Canada to those two factors.

Mr. Breithaupt: In a lengthy letter printed in the Globe and Mail of which he was the apparent author, the minister comments: "As well, to table this confidential information could undermine the ability of Sun Company Incorporated to sell the other 26 per cent of its shares so that majority ownership and control can be held in Canadian hands."

Is the minister trying to tell us that he cannot allow others to know the information on which he bought his shares in case they do not want to buy it? Or is he trying to say that if he let the information out, people would realize he should not have bought in the first place?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I am very pleased that the honourable member took the time this morning to read the letter with the care that he obviously has. Under the circumstances, in responding to his question, I thought I might use this opportunity to say how much I appreciate the fact that the letter was published.

I am going to use this opportunity as well to say that! will be writing to the editor to indicate that I am sorry there was one

part left out of the letter which deals with the very point the member raised, namely, confidentiality. In the course of that letter, after the paragraph dealing with confidentiality to which the honourable member refers, I went on to write and share this in my letter:

"It is useful to recall what the Royal Commission on the Freedom of Information recommended in cases such as this, and I quote:

"We recommend the adoption of the following exemptions relating to commercial information: (

a) A governmental institution may refuse to disclose a record: (

i) containing a trade secret or other financial, commercial, scientific or technical information obtained from a person, if the disclosure of that information could reasonably be expected to prejudice significantly the competitive position, or interfere significantly with the contractual or other negotiations, of a person, group of persons or organization."

I think it was unfortunate that this was left out of the letter this morning, because it talks about the reason why we are respecting that agreement.

Mr. Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: A question was asked by the member for Kitchener precisely with regard to a paragraph in a letter. You heard the question. He said that if giving out the information will deter other people from buying it he wants to know if the facts are so bad that other people will not buy it or if the facts so bad that he should not have bought it.

That question has not been even remotely approached in the minister's answer. He went on to talk about a totally different paragraph that should have been in the letter. Surely you can call the minister to order and not give him 15 minutes to stand up and avoid answering a question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I just point out that the Leader of the Opposition is as well aware as I am of the standing orders pertaining to the answering of questions by ministers.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows perfectly well that this recommendation of the Commission on the Freedom of Information and Individual Privacy was not at all directed to situations where there was a major investment by the people of the province --

Hon. Mr. Welch: I don't know that at all.

Mr. Cassidy: Well, it certainly was directed only to companies where the information happened to come into public hands.

As a potential shareholder of Suncor, putting a $600-million investment in there, I am concerned about the fact that my company has just reported that for nine months its profit is down to $50 million from $255 million in the same period last year.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Cassidy: My supplementary to the minister is this: So that I can find Out what is actually happening with this company, of which we are to take 25 per cent, is it the government's intention to bring supplementary estimates into this Legislature so that we can decide whether, and how much, to vote for the purchase of Suncor, or does the government intend to buy into Suncor without seeking legislative approval?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I think the honourable member understands -- in fact, he has participated in the debates on this matter up to now -- that there are all kinds of information that is public, and that has been included in the tabling --

Mr. Foulds: All kind of information, but not the truth.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I beg your pardon? Not the truth?

Mr. Foulds: Not the truth; only wrong information.

Mr. Smith: Not the whole truth.

Mr. Foulds: There is a difference between information and truth.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I suggest that the minister answer the question and never mind the interjections, please.

Mr. Cassidy: Will you bring in supplementary estimates? Yes or no?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Welch: As far as the disclosure of information is concerned, we have already dealt with that. The honourable member knows the transaction is being done under the statutory authority provided to the Ontario Energy Corporation.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, will the minister take this occasion either to refuse to answer these questions or to provide the answers that were asked for by the member for Kitchener?

In the first place, with regard to the refinery for which the minister took credit and which he said would not have been upgraded without his deal, will he admit, as the member for Kitchener pointed out, that they had already been committed for more than a year to do that very upgrading because of the heavy oil problem and because of federal policy at the time, and that it had nothing to do with his purchase? Will he admit that or else refuse to answer?

Second, will the minister explain to us how making the facts known to the public will deter a purchaser from buying 26 per cent of the shares? Are the facts that bad?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, although I can appreciate that the Leader of the Opposition came in on the question a bit late --

Mr. Smith: I heard it outside, very clearly.

Hon. Mr. Welch: That perhaps will be the member's permanent position: on the outside listening to what is going on.

If the member really had listened to the question, he would have understood something was being attributed to me with respect to that statement, which I was drawing to his attention, that was in the body of the Suncor news release.

Mr. Smith: No, no. On Thursday you said it.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I was quoting. Perhaps I will give the member for Kitchener an opportunity to bring him up to date. It is a news release I was using from Suncor, making reference to Canadianization.

Mr. Smith: You said it in your statement to the House.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Well, I think the member should use the news release too that I was quoting from. It says so right in Hansard.

Mr. Speaker: Will the minister address himself to the question, please, and never mind the interjections?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I thought I was perhaps being helpful to the honourable member, because he presumes to know what was being asked.

With respect to the disclosure, we are talking in terms of the fact that we have retained professional people to give us advice with respect to our negotiations, which we think is privileged information in so far as it deals with others who may be seeking an opportunity to buy into that matter as well.

As far as the upgrading is concerned, there is no question that there has been a fair amount of interest expressed in this country about the need for heavy oil upgrading. I assumed, on the basis of that release, that what Suncor was doing was establishing some timetable for it and was giving some attribution to the pricing agreement between --

Mr. Smith: Not so.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The member will have to read the press release and then perhaps ask me the questions.

Mr. Smith: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I am going to quote from Hansard, because the implication is being made here that we are somehow distorting what the minister has said. At page 3712 of Hansard, he says: "With respect to the employment implications in Ontario" -- and then he goes on to speak about the press release and so on -- "we see that some $350 million is to be spent in Sarnia." Then he talks about the number of jobs: "This will involve 1,000 direct construction jobs at the Suncor refinery at the height of the project..

Is that not interesting for Ontario?" Then, referring to the release, the minister says, and this is the key: "He the president of Suncor. says all this is made possible because Canadianization plans for his company are well under way, and we are involved in that. It is a very positive step."

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Welch: That is what the press release said.

Mr. Smith: Whatever the press release said, if one looks at the 10-K document supplied by Suncor to the Securities and Exchange Commission in Washington on March 31, 1981, it says plainly that as of September 30 they were already committed to the upgrading of the refinery in Sarnia --

Hon. Mr. Welch: When? To start when?

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is deteriorating into a debate. The member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) with a new question.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, you let the member for High-Park Swansea (Mr. Shymko) stand here with his self-congratulatory nonsense --

Mr. Speaker: Order. You are out of order.

Mr. Sargent: A new form of closure, eh?

Mr. Mancini: You had no right to turn the microphones off.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We don't turn them off.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre has the floor and will please proceed.

AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. Yesterday, he blamed some of the shortfall in jobs in the St. Thomas area on market conditions in the automobile industry.

I want to ask the Premier whether he is aware of the report by Mr. Neil MacDonald on the medium-term employment outlook in the automotive industry, a report that was prepared for the federal Labour Market Development Task Force and is now under serious study by the federal government. It forecasts that employment in the automobile industry in Canada could drop to between 50,000 and 55,000 workers by 1990, or half the level that existed in 1980.

In view of this new evidence of the structural problems in the automobile industry, is the government now prepared to take some new long-term initiatives to restore jobs in that industry?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, we have debated this subject on a number of occasions. I have not read Mr. MacDonald's report. We have debated in this House the long-term future of the automotive industry. I can only express a personal point of view based on discussions I have had with people in the industry, with members of the United Automobile Workers and others. I remain far more optimistic about the future of the automotive industry than some others.

Mr. Cooke: Based on what?

Hon. Mr. Davis: If the member for Windsor- Riverside (Mr. Cooke), in representing that important segment of the economy of this province, wants to be totally negative about the future of the automotive sector, so be it.

I suggest to the leader of the New Democratic Party that when it comes to giving encouragement to the automotive industry in terms of both the major producers and the auto parts sector, I question whether any other government in North America has done as much as we have. I ask him to show me any government that has done more to encourage the development of the automotive sector than the government of this province. He will not find one.

Mr. Cassidy: Does the Premier recall the leaked report from the Ministry of Treasury and Economics which came out a year ago about the 1985 shape of the motor vehicle industry? In that report the ministry itself forecast employment in the industry would be down to between 63,000 and 67,000 workers by 1985. Now we have another forecast which suggests it will be down to 50,000 by the end of the decade.

Will the Premier say what has happened to the large-scale review of the industry's prospects and problems which the Treasurer said was under way in his mini-budget a year ago and which has yet to result in any new and effective policies to maintain and improve jobs in the automotive industry?

Hon. Mr. Davis: This gets around to one of the basic problems in the automotive industry which, as I explained to the leader of the New Democratic Party, was not easy for this government to resolve. That is the question of domestic markets in North America, the question of how many Americans are buying automobiles.

With great respect to the honourable member, the automotive sector in this province is somewhat dependent upon consumer attitudes and purchases in the United States. That may have escaped him, but it happens to be a reality that even he should be able to understand.

Mr. Smith: Then why did you reduce the sales tax in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would like to show the Leader of the Opposition all the comments we have had from dealers across this province and from the manufacturers.

He can oppose it all he likes. I just think he should consider himself very fortunate that he is not maintaining his position as Leader of the Liberal Party because he would be decimated by these people. Now where was I?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I could give the leader of the New Democratic Party one example that was sort of a worst-case scenario developed by some people who were studying the automotive sector. If he looks at that very carefully, he will find some dire predictions about American Motors. He will find, if I have the same report in mind, that since the preparation of that report American Motors US and American Motors Canada have entered into a modest agreement with Renault, which was not anticipated by the authors of the report. If all goes well, this will add growth for American Motors Canada. I happen to know a little bit about that problem.

There are still some difficulties with that relationship and finality with respect to it, but that report -- and I just used one example -- was very negative about the long-term future of American Motors. Am I right?

That picture has changed, and there is reason to be optimistic about the --

Mr. Cassidy: This report suggests only 40,000 jobs by 1990.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know what it is, and the honourable member always likes to look at the worst-case scenario of every single subject. That has been his prime motivation all his political life. But in spite of his dire predictions, in spite of his negative attitude and that of his party, this province has produced more jobs in this past year than even we had anticipated. We do not minimize the economic difficulties, but the long-term future of the economy of this province is very healthy, including the automotive sector.

Mr. Wrye: Supplementary: Mr. Speaker, the Premier (Mr. Davis) will be aware that just yesterday General Motors announced the indefinite layoff of more than 300 workers at its transmission plant in Windsor, and a temporary layoff of almost 400 -- a total layoff of more than 700 workers. At the same time they announced they would be delaying expansion of that plant until early spring, and reducing the number of trans-axles that it has been making back down to 2,000.

What is the Premier doing to ensure that any cutbacks in the expansion programs by the automotive industry will not be confined to Canada, which would further cripple the automotive industry here in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) would be delighted to reply in more definitive terms. I have the figures before me, if the honourable member wants me to send them to him, with respect to the number of layoffs in the American facilities of General Motors, Ford and Chrysler. The figures will show rather conclusively that the companies are dealing with this in a very even-handed fashion.

If we take Chrysler as an example, and the honourable member should be aware of this, their plant in Windsor is the one plant that has gone on double shift because the consumer market in the United States, for some reason or other, has decided it wants more of the larger- sized vehicles rather than the smaller ones. I cannot explain this, but it just happens to be that at the moment Chrysler in Windsor is the beneficiary. As I sense the attitude of the companies, Ontario is not being singled out. The layoffs in the American facilities have been as significant, on a percentage basis, or perhaps even higher.

To get back to the point I tried to make to the Leader of the New Democratic Party, who does not understand it, the situation in the automotive sector -- and we are not minimizing it; it is serious -- does relate to the number of vehicles being purchased by Americans in the United States. As a layman, I would relate this consumer reaction directly to the interest rates in the United States. This province, in relative terms, is being treated fairly, and there is not a higher percentage of our workers being laid off temporarily in this province than in the States.

Mr. Foulds: That makes it good, does it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, it does not make it good, but at least we can be honest about it.

Mr. Foulds: What are you going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Why don't you buy a new car?

Mr. Foulds: What are you going to do about it? You are the government for at least the next three years. Why are you so defensive?

Hon. Mr. Davis: How long did it take you to buy a North American-produced car?

Mr. Nixon: When was the last time you paid for one?

Hon. Mr. Davis: My wife just bought one.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, we know just how badly things are going in the auto industry when the Premier talks about the positive aspects of the auto industry. He talks about the Chrysler plant which has been at work less than 50 per cent of the year so far, and says that is a positive aspect of the auto industry.

I would like to know when this government is going to introduce a policy, a long-term strategy, for the automobile industry, and in particular the auto parts industry? The Premier will be aware that Mexico has introduced content rules which now has made it the fastest-growing automotive jurisdiction in the world.

3:10 p.m.

Is the government prepared to press the federal government for content rules and in so doing, also institute a policy of expansion in our auto parts firms, through direct investment, through adequate research and development to create the 25,000 to 30,000 jobs associated with just 85 per cent Canadian value added requirements?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, it is kind of intriguing that the member even acknowledges there are 25,000 jobs available if this were to happen, because his leader was just giving us totally different figures.

I would say a clear demonstration which they opposed as a party, and probably individually, was the encouragement given by this government to Volkswagen to locate in Barrie. They are opposed to it. I understand it but it is a clear indication of what this government has been able to accomplish.

Mr. Martel: You did not answer the question. You are all over the ball park.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question. The member for Ottawa Centre.

BILD PROGRAM

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Premier about the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program.

Yesterday the Premier said the BILD program was designed to deal with specific sectors and talked about the food-processing sector. He said that $8.5 million have been spent there and said after six or seven months BILD is having an impact.

Was he referring to the fact that Southland Canning in the Windsor area has now gone into receivership after receiving a $350,000 grant from the BILD program to go into the tomato paste program? Or is this not more evidence that the BILD program is floundering before it even gets off the ground?

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I was not referring to that. The honourable member knows full well the commitment of $8.5 million covers many aspects of the processing industry. I met with the processors yesterday. If he does not believe me he can go and talk to them. I think he would be most welcome. He might even learn something.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Could the Premier explain how it is that the civil servant most associated with creating the BILD program, Duncan Allan, now the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Food, could say a few weeks ago: "Damn it all. I sometimes think maybe the answer is that we have got to have a publicly-owned or co-operative plant big enough to be able to get into that market and compete with the multinationals." He was referring specifically to the area of tomato paste after $350,000 had gone into a firm which is now in receivership.

Why is it the government keeps trying to convince people in this province the BILD program is going to turn the economy of Ontario around when the evidence all around us is that it is not going to work? Even the author of the BILD program is turning his back on it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, I asked the member for Downsview with respect to de Havilland -- we can go through it

chapter and verse if the member has the time and the House will permit. The minister would be delighted to go through it, item by item.

As I said yesterday, if the members opposite would listen to me very carefully, the BILD program has singled out certain sectors of the economy. Do they want me to go through them again? The processing industry is an area one can single out as being in some difficulty, but members can ask the processors about their acceptance of the plan and what we have been doing. We have committed $8.5 million. My guess is that we will reach the five-year program within 12 months. In fact, the Treasury will probably be asked to allocate additional funds for the food processing industry.

I know the leader of the New Democratic Party is opposed to the BILD program. He is opposed to it because it is working. This is totally consistent with his philosophy, has been and will continue to be and I am not even going to try to change his mind.

Mr. Mancini: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Does the Premier not agree with me there is a tremendous need in the Windsor-Essex county area to have a more diversified economy to get away from being so highly dependent on the automotive industry? And does he not agree we are in a unique position there to support a huge tomato paste industry which could bring many new jobs to our area?

Could we have his assurance that, although this one cannery was unsuccessful in obtaining a market for tomato paste, this will not discourage the government investing more money in the Essex county area to take advantage of the tremendous farm land and the highly productive farmers who can fill the gap and displace imported tomato paste? Can we have the Premier's assurance that this one company's lack of success is not going to sour the government on its program? We need assistance in this area.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I cannot recall, in debating the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program, a more enthusiastic endorsement from a member of the opposition than that we have just received. I recognize the unique characteristics of Essex county and of Windsor. I will not tell him how unique I think it is in some respects, but it is unique.

If he is saying that one bad experience should not deter us from giving leadership and encouragement to the development of the agricultural sector -- not only in Essex, but in Kent, Elgin, Middlesex, Peel, and so forth -- of course we will not let that discourage us. I am delighted the member understands what we are attempting to do and is so totally supportive. He should talk to his friends from Essex over there and get their endorsement as well.

Mr. Cooke: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: There is a great deal of concern amongst tomato farmers in Kent and Essex counties as to whether there will be a purchaser for their tomatoes next year because this plant has gone under. Will the Premier commit himself or have his minister investigate the possibility of entering into direct investment with the farmers in the area to set up a co-operative to keep this plant going?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the plant is still operating, as I am sure the honourable member knows. If he is asking whether we as a government will do our best to ensure a market for the excellent product in Essex county, the answer, of course, is yes. I assume, in spite of the member's hypocritical observations when he is at home and here --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, I am sorry -- contradictory observations. I assume the member would agree with the former member and that if we found something was viable he would encourage BILD initiatives to assist the farmers in Essex county as well.

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN COLLECTION

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Culture and Recreation on the McMichael matter. The minister will be aware that as a result of the press conference by Mr. Taylor today there seems to be an issue developing as to the degree of influence the McMichaels are to have in the conduct of those aspects of the collection that have to do with the aesthetic values.

Would the minister agree that in the original agreement the advisory council was to consist of five persons: the McMichaels, two crown appointees and a chairman agreeable to all four persons? Would he agree the spirit of that was to be maintained in the act that was passed which said the board of trustees could have five to nine persons? The board was increased to nine but all appointments were to be made either at the suggestion of or with the approval of the McMichaels.

Could the minister explain the change of policy which occurred about three or four years ago when, instead of having the appointees either suggested or approved by the McMichaels, the government decided to make political appointments of people with, sometimes, no claim to knowledge in the field of art and without the approval of the McMichaels? This reached the point where Mr. McMichael and Mr. Taylor had to go to the ministry from time to time to ask why these people were being appointed instead of people they had recommended. Why did the policy change about three or four years ago?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, the policy did not change. At no time did Mr. McMichael get the power to approve the appointment of any order in council appointee to the board. I think the Leader of the Opposition could very --

Mr. Smith: He always did.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: He never had the power to approve a member who was appointed by order in council.

Mr. Smith: Not officially, but he did.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: No, never. He recommended perhaps, but he never approved.

Mr. Smith: He used to recommend them.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: The Leader of the Opposition should think through this scenario a little more clearly. What would happen if we had a board of trustees conducting the affairs of this very large public gallery where all the members would have to be approved -- whether that word would be in quotes or not in quotes -- by Mr. McMichael? What a cozy little setup that would be, would it not? Would he suggest that? There was never ever any suggestion that Mr. McMichael could approve, formally or informally, any appointees made by order in council. Therefore, the policy has never changed.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Smith: Supplementary: The original agreement made it very plain the board was only five persons -- the McMichaels, two crown appointees and a chairman agreeable to them all. Also the McMichaels had been assured the new act was not going to change the tone of that, even though it was changing the number from five to nine. The people put on the board did not need his approval but in practice were usually recommended by them. In view of all this, why did the policy change three or four years ago so that neither Mr. McMichael -- nor Mr. Taylor for that matter -- were asked about it and political appointees were made who were people they did not even know in many instances?

Why did the minister say on television on The Loeb Report yesterday that the act superseded the agreement? The member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) asked at the time: "Shouldn't there be an amendment that would say for all time there would be an obligation on the foundation to carry out all of the obligations of the original agreement." The then minister replied plainly: "I am satisfied the intent of the bill is to accomplish just that."

Why is the minister now in retrospect suggesting the agreement, which had an advisory board of two plus two and a neutral chairman, could be changed by the bill to the point where they can have political appointments dominating the board?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, as I said before -- and we should get this very clear -- Mr. McMichael never ever had the power to approve any appointments made through order in council.

As far as the appointments made to the board of trustees are concerned I think I understand why Mr. McMichael has some troubles in accepting some of the members of the board. It is because of the continuing difficulties between all of the members and some of the members of the board at the present time and the McMichaels.

The interesting thing in all this is that four of the present members of the board of trustees are original members of that body. As a result, one could say these were friends, these were people Mr. McMichael knew.

In recent years a problem has developed. There is a very real difference of opinion between the McMichaels on the one hand and all the other members of the board, in terms of who is managing or who has the power to manage the gallery. It certainly has nothing to do with the idea Mr. McMichael is attempting to spread abroad that somehow or other the government is dumping members of a board on him who are alien to his way of thinking or who are unknown to him and who are trying to drown him out. There is none of that whatsoever and I deeply resent Mr. McMichael suggesting that is what is happening.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us how he expects anybody in Ontario henceforth to donate anything of value to the province? It would appear -- and the minister has done nothing to dispel the appearance -- the government has betrayed its agreement with a benefactor of this province. How does he expect anybody to donate anything from now on?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I guess I should reread the statement I made here the other day. This government has not in the past, and will not in the future, in any way renege on the agreement signed in 1965 or on the act of 1972. If the member will be specific in asking that question as to where, how and when we have reneged on that agreement, please let me know. But he should be specific and quit his generalizations.

Mr. Speaker: New question, the member for Hamilton East.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: New question. That was the final supplementary.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier.

Mr. Roy: You are saving him again, eh, Mr. Speaker?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Roy: I am being challenged.

Mr. Speaker: No, you are not.

Mr. Roy: I am prepared to accept the challenge.

IRWIN TOY DISPUTE

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, will the Premier tell the workers in Ontario what rights they have to organize and engage in free collective bargaining as set out under the Labour Relations Act?

In the case of Irwin Toy, a disputes advisory committee was set up consisting of Mr. Bob Joyce and Terry Meagher. It came down with a contract recommendation that is appallingly modest -- an increase of 10 cents an hour after six months and minimal health benefits; $3.70 an hour for these hard-working women. This was a rather sick proposal the union is ready to ratify in an effort to establish the right to collective bargaining at that plant. Arnold Irwin nevertheless comes out and says no way and refuses to accept even the settlement proposal the disputes advisory committee thought they had.

Would the Premier say what rights workers have in Ontario, and what is their next step?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with all the specific details of the Irwin discussion. I will be delighted to raise this with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie) tomorrow in cabinet and have him give the member a full report on Thursday.

Mr. Mackenzie: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In light of this absolutely unbelievable situation at Irwin Toy, will the Premier not also discuss the obvious and absolute need for first-contract legislation in his discussions with cabinet? What has happened here is a clear refusal by Mr. Irwin, even at 10 cents an hour, to sign a contract the disputes advisory committee thought they had. That simply means he is saying the right to collective bargaining means nothing: there is not going to be a union in that plant.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will just repeat what I said to the honourable member: I am not familiar with all the specifics in the Irwin Toy situation. I will raise it with the Minister of Labour, and I am sure he will have some observations for the member on Thursday.

HYDRO SERVICE

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, and it concerns the current fate of the Renfrew County hamlet of Foymount. The minister will be aware that on Monday of last week the provincial hydro utility severed the power supply to the main water and sewage plants at that facility, thus seriously undermining the day-to-day situation of the 25 families resident in that community.

I want to know whether or not the Minister of Energy was aware that Hydro was about to take that decision and, if he was, why the meeting he promised to the local municipal authorities some two months ago to try to work out some kind of accommodation of this admittedly very difficult situation was never held.

Was he informed? If he was, how does he square this action by Ontario Hydro with a promise he apparently made to the municipal council and others involved that no such drastic action would ever take place without first holding a meeting of all interested parties?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware the commitment was along those lines. My parliamentary assistant (Mr. Andrewes) carried on discussions with the officials in that municipality. To answer question number one, we were aware. There were a number of conversations with my parliamentary assistant on that issue in an attempt to have parties find some common ground for resolving the difficulty there.

It is my understanding that, as the honourable member has correctly pointed out, electrical service to the water and sewage plants has been terminated. There is some auxiliary equipment there to look after it, and I hope we can see some resolution of this matter. It involves a developer and some difference of opinion as to who carries the responsibility.

But I would not want the honourable member to feel there were not very frequent discussions back and forth in an attempt to bring people's points of view to the attention of the proper authorities. I do not know of any specific commitment that said nothing of this nature would happen until -- and I underline until -- some type of formal meeting is held.

3:30 p.m.

Mr. Conway: I want to assure the minister that local municipal authorities are of the collective opinion that commitment was provided by the government through the Minister of Energy. If that is not the case, I think it is important for him to clarify it.

I want to know what specific undertakings the Minister of Energy will provide to restore power to those very basic services. Residents cannot get by without them for very long. Admittedly, a number of emergency factors now supply the community, but it is widely regarded that they cannot function for very long without the main electrical supply to the water and sewage treatment plant.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Ministry of the Environment are undertaking major studies to see whether or not there is long-term viability to that troubled community. What specific undertaking is the Minister of Energy prepared to make on behalf of the province at this time. With the first winter snows blowing across that hilltop hamlet, what specific undertaking is he prepared to provide to give effect to the promise, "When you need us," meaning Hydro, "we are there?"

Hon. Mr. Welch: I am sure, in expressing his legitimate concerns, the member would want to underline that there is no disruption of electrical service to the homes in this community. We are not talking about the lack of electrical service to people in their homes. We are talking about a matter in which there is some dispute as to who has the responsibility for maintaining the services the member referred to.

My information is from my parliamentary assistant who has been very attentive to details and has attempted over a number of conversations to communicate concerns back and forth to those who have been involved. I understand the last offer was that Hydro simply wanted a modest deposit put up until such time as some of these other matters of jurisdiction and responsibility were settled.

The Minister of Energy stands ready to discuss this matter at any time, but ultimately Hydro had to take some stand with respect to the arrears. They have taken that position but they have made it quite clear they are prepared to negotiate with those involved. They have asked for a modest amount by way of deposit to show good faith while they carry on some discussions.

OHIP COVERAGE

Mr. Grande: My question is for the Minister of Health. Eight to 10 children at the Hospital for Sick Children are suffering from a fatal genetic skin disease called epidermolysis bullosa. It eats away at the patients' limbs and death from internal bleeding gradually results. Dr. Boxall, the head of dermatology at the Hospital for Sick Children, is convinced the treatment Dr. Kozak provides in West Germany works and advises his patients, "If you can pay, if you have the money, go."

In view of the fact it costs about $25,000 for each patient and guardian to go abroad and get the treatment, would the minister instruct the Ontario Hospital Insurance Plan to accept the bill for Ontario children and young adults so they can be treated for this crippling and fatal disease?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I do not know if the honourable member is reflecting accurately the views of Dr. Boxall at the Hospital for Sick Children. Certainly, he is involved in some meetings which will be held in this city this weekend involving the gentleman from West Germany who has developed the alleged cure for this previously untreatable disease.

In the course of the discussions to be held in this city and in Edmonton tomorrow and I believe the next day, we hope the gentleman involved from West Germany will reveal what his alleged cure consists of. As long as we can be satisfied that what is involved in treating these patients will not cause other side effects in the long run, we are prepared to pay and include this as part of the Ontario health insurance plan and see that it is provided here, so that people do not have to travel all the way to Europe.

I should point out that the gentleman involved is not a physician. He practises as a healer under a law passed in Germany in the 1930s, under which the sole criterion for licensing is that one does no harm.

As I say, if we could find out what this treatment consists of, and to date all attempts to find out have been unsuccessful, and satisfy ourselves that it is not something that will have longer-term ill effects, we will be happy to include it in our health plan.

Mr. Grande: The minister is aware, of course, that the gentleman in question, Dr. Kozak, is a PhD in biochemistry.

Dr. Boxall said to me in a telephone conversation that it appeared from the symptoms the patient Tony Degabriele had when he came back in early September, after he received the treatment in August, that the disease had been stopped. That is what Dr. Boxall said.

Is the minister suggesting that as soon as he or his ministry has discussions with Dr. Kozak this weekend -- because I understand he is going to be here in Toronto on Sunday -- the ministry will then change its rule so that OHIP will be able to pay for that treatment? Is the minister saying that, as a result, the change will be made in OHIP?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am saying to the member that five minutes after I can be satisfied by the physicians in my ministry, to whom the details of the treatment will be revealed, assuming the details are revealed, including the compounds involved and the various medications administered, and five minutes after I can be satisfied there are no potentially ill side effects, I will recommend its inclusion in our health plan.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, will the minister's commitment extend to paying the expenses of those who have already travelled to Germany for the treatment and who on their return have found the cure was effective as far as they are concerned?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I have no authority to make any such retroactive payment.

Mr. Nixon: Why? Certainly you do.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, I do not.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The point is that if this is valid --

Mr. Smith: They should have let their kids die, eh?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Smith: They had no choice but to go. Be sensible; what choice did they have?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The minister is responding to a specific question.

Mr. Smith: What choice did they have but to go to Germany?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You know better than that. Why don't you --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Smith: They had no choice but to go to Germany, and the minister knows it. What else could they have done?

Mr. Speaker: The minister.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, there are various kinds of illness, and the member is displaying a quite different kind.

Mr. Smith: Oh, come off it! What were they supposed to do with their kids?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The fact is, and the member knows this as a physician, we will cover any medical act the efficacy of which has been proven and which will not in and of itself produce ill side effects. I cannot be clearer than that. Over the years all attempts to try to find out what this treatment supposedly consists of have been unsuccessful. I am saying that if we can find out and satisfy ourselves that it is --

Ms. Copps: Tony Degabriele's illness was terminal.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Is the member a physician?

Ms. Copps: He was diagnosed as terminally ill.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the minister just respond to the original question, please?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: In all respects we rely on --

Mr. Smith: He is alive.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Yes, and thank God he is.

An hon. member: No thanks to you.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: What a charmer! The member will be a lovely Leader of the Opposition.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that we must satisfy ourselves that it is a proper treatment and, assuming we can satisfy ourselves of that, it will be included in our health plan.

FOREIGN INTERFERENCE

Mr. Shymko: Mr. Speaker, I want to address my question to the Attorney General in the light of the comments I made on a point of privilege. What action is the Attorney General prepared to take to assist me, or other members of this Legislature in similar predicaments, when subjected to campaigns of hate and defamation by foreign governments and publications?

3:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, the issue raised by the member for High Park-Swansea was legitimate and important. I have seen some of the publications to which he has referred, and I would like to think that all members, even some members opposite, might be sensitive to what I think is a very serious matter.

Judging by the comments, I regret that some of the members opposite treat these issues in a frivolous and cavalier fashion. The public is aware of that treatment, and that is why those members will remain on that side of the aisle and we will remain on this side.

Having said that, I think this issue should be taken up with the appropriate federal authorities with respect to the use of the federal postal service for the distribution of material that is highly offensive and, indeed, vicious. I indicate to the member that I am prepared to meet with him and the appropriate federal authorities, together with any other members who may share our concerns.

Mr. Sargent: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: If the matter is so damned important, why does the Attorney General not do something about it himself? Here we have a case of a man wanting to be re-elected so he can --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter of privilege.

COMPENDIUM REQUIREMENT

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you noticed in the Globe and Mail this morning that the Minister of Energy indicated he felt the rules having to do with the requirements that a compendium be tabled following a statement of policy were a bit inadequate.

I will just read the rule; it is standing order 26(c): "After any policy statement the minister shall table a compendium of background information."

lam sure you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that the rule is quite clear, not just in its implication but also in its direction. For anybody to suggest that the statement of the Premier announcing the acquisition of 25 per cent of the common shares of Suncor is not a policy statement is simply unacceptable. To go on and argue that the rule does not give a time limit and, therefore, the rule was not breached is, in my view, unacceptable.

I would like to know your views, Mr. Speaker, since the rule was cast quite clearly and was meant to bind the government. Surely no cabinet minister should bring it into public question.

Mr. Speaker: I will take that matter into consideration and report back. I think I have mentioned before, through previous discussions, what my role is in the understanding of what a compendium is or the responsibility of the Speaker in tabling documents.

Mr. Smith: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker: You have already said a compendium can consist of whatever the government wishes to say. It is much like the Queen in Alice in Wonderland, that a compendium means what they say it is, neither more nor less. They could give a Mickey Mouse comic book and call it a compendium.

Now the minister is saying there is no time limit. There might be a situation whereby a policy statement is made, and we can be given a comic book as a compendium and have to wait three years before we get it.

Surely the rule becomes an even worse joke than it already would be under your

interpretation, Mr. Speaker, if we add to it the minister's

interpretation that there is no time limit either.

Mr. Speaker: I want to refresh the memory of the Leader of the Opposition. It was not my

interpretation. In fact, I looked it up in May's Parliamentary Practice and it is quite clear. With all respect, if you will look up the definition of what a compendium is, it does not help; there is nothing mentioned there.

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN COLLECTION

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition referred again to a letter dated August 8, 1981, which is alleged to have been sent by Mr. McMichael to the chairman of the board, Mr. Allyn Taylor, in which Mr. McMichael is said to have discussed certain allegations and offered a resignation of sorts. The Leader of the Opposition says it was confirmed that such a letter was sent to Mr. Taylor and that it was copied to me.

I can only reiterate that at no time have I received a copy of such a letter. I discussed this matter with Mr. Taylor this morning, and he too confirmed that he does not recall ever receiving a letter such as this and that there is no such letter in his file. I can only go back to the original point I made, which is that, as far as I know, no such previous letter was sent.

On a second point, the Leader of the Opposition stated he has also confirmed that the unofficial meeting of the collection's board members, to which Robert and Signe McMichael were not invited, was called for last Saturday, November 19. Again, I have no knowledge of such a meeting. I discussed this with Mr. Taylor this morning. He assures me no official or unofficial board meeting was called but that he came into town in his capacity as an officer of a trust company, had some friends in for lunch, and one or two of the friends happened to be on the board. He happens to like the people.

Mr. Smith: On the same point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The minister will know that we checked with Mr. Michael Bell's secretary, and she stated she had phoned the members of the board, except for the McMichaels, with regard to this unofficial meeting. When asked why the McMichaels had not been included, she said, "You had better talk to Mr. Taylor about that." She said she did so at the request of Mr. Taylor. The minister had better deal with her.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition deal should with Mr. Taylor; he has given us this information. This is the second or third time the member has questioned the integrity of Mr. Taylor, who has given so much in managing the affairs of the McMichael gallery. He is questioning his integrity over what are really minor matters. The time has come that the member had better apologize to Mr. Taylor and the entire board.

MOTIONS

ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that in the committee of supply the estimates of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs be taken fourth in sequence; and that in the standing committee on resources development, estimates of the Ministry of Industry and Tourism and the resources development policy secretariat be transferred to the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments, to be taken in that sequence.

Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE BILLS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that notwithstanding any previous orders of the House, the following private bills be transferred from the standing committee on general government to the standing committee on resources development, and that standing order 72(

a) respecting notice of committee hearings be waived for the consideration of those bills by the standing committee on Wednesday, November 25, and Thursday, November 26.

Bill Pr25,

An Act respecting the Township of North Dorchester;

Bill Pr31,

An Act respecting the City of Kanata;

Bill Pr32,

An Act respecting the Town of Bracebridge;

Bill Pr33,

An Act respecting the Town of Gravenhurst;

Bill Pr34,

An Act respecting the Town of Huntsville;

Bill Pr36,

An Act respecting the Township of Chandos.

Motion agreed to.

3:50 p.m.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TRIBUNALS CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT

Mr. Philip moved, seconded by Mr. Swart, first reading of Bill 173, the Tribunals Conflict of Interest Act, 1981.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, this bill prohibits former members and officers of tribunals subject to

part I of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act from acting as advocates before those bodies for a two-year period after ceasing to hold their positions. The same restriction is imposed on former ministers and deputy ministers in connection with tribunals under the administration of their former ministries. The maximum penalty is $10,000.

SUCCESSION LAW ACT

Mr. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Nixon, first reading of Bill 174,

An Act respecting the Succession to Estates of Deceased Persons in Ontario who have Beneficiaries Residing in Designated Countries.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to ensure that payments from the estates of persons domiciled in Ontario at the time of death are not made to foreign beneficiaries who are unlikely to receive for their whole benefit or use substantially the full value of any payments made under the estate and who reside in certain countries designated by regulation.

The bill provides for an application to be made to a court for an order permitting payments to a foreign beneficiary. The court may also order that no payment be made to a foreign beneficiary, in which case the court shall make an order disposing of the estate in accordance with the rules of succession contained in the Succession Law Reform Act with necessary modifications.

ANSWER TO QUESTION ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the answer to question 246 standing on the Notice Paper.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 144,

An Act to amend the Ontario Water Resources Act.

Bill 145,

An Act to amend the Pesticides Act.

House in committee of the whole.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 143,

An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Chairman, I have no opening remarks. I suggest we proceed with clause-by-clause consideration.

section 1:

Mr. Kerrio: I have some questions on the proposed

section 40a(3). I wonder if the third party has anything before that.

Mr. Chairman: The indication is no. Mr. Kerrio, I am looking at some of your proposed amendments. I see that you do not specifically refer to the

section of this bill but to sections of the Environmental Protection Act.

Mr. Kerrio: But there are questions relating to some aspects of the bill that I want to raise, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Then you will have to sort of shout as we go along.

Shall subsections 1 and 2 carry? Carried.

Do you have a question on subsection 3, Mr. Kerrio?

Mr. Kerrio: Yes, Mr. Chairman. My concern relates to how this

section reads in talking about a certificate of approval or a provisional certificate of approval that is in force. We already have had an experience related to those kinds of approvals. I wonder what the expiry of such approvals has to do with this section, because as a component of the Ridge determination, while there was approval in force that had expired, they had some great difficulty after the term of expiration because they continued to put materials into that site. I wonder how we are going to correct the kind of problem that existed at that time.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Chairman, as far as the reference to the Ridge site is concerned, surely the member would understand that until such time as there were a finding by the court that the certificate was not in force, it would continue to be in force; so the concern he is expressing ought not to be directed towards the time prior to the court's finding. If he is talking about the time subsequent to the court's determination --

Mr. Kerrio: But the expiry date has passed. There was no authorization.

Hon. Mr. Norton: No. Because I think it is an established principle in law, certainly under the legislation, that even though the date may expire, the certificate would continue to be in effect or in force. If one is talking about following the court's determination approach, that is a different matter. At that point, anything of that nature must cease going in, as it has in that particular site. I do not think it is a problem.

Prior to the court's determination, that certificate was in force. It was the court's decision that determined, as it applied to liquid industrial waste, that it cease.

Mr. Kerrio: The fact is, I was concerned about the certificate of approval expiry date. I wondered what significance it was going to have, which the minister has explained in one area. Does anyone else have questions on that matter before I go right to the next one?

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Chairman, I understand what the minister is saying. Once the court has put an end to the approval, it is ended. But what will the future activities be? Will one have to apply to the court each time to say whether an approval has run out or has reached an end, or will the minister himself say that the date has arrived and it is therefore ended? I think that is the question we would like answered.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Chairman, it would still be necessary to seek a court decision in any individual case. If there were some dispute as to the validity of a certificate, the correctness of the certificate or whether it was still in force properly, obviously the appropriate forum would be the court. I am not sure if the member is referring specifically to Ridge. If there were some question about validity on another site, the court would be the appropriate forum to determine any dispute.

4 p.m.

Mr. Kerrio: If there is a certificate of approval that carries an expiry date, should we not resolve the environmental problem as it exists for the reasons the expiry date was put on there in the first place? With the expiration of that approval, there should not be any dumping done. Could that not be handled in the regulations or in this bill?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I think one would have to give that consideration at another time. This does not really apply to that. We are getting off on a tangent, I think. What the member is proposing might create some difficulty if, for example. the expiry date arose during the course of hearings. One cannot be too rigid on that. On the other hand, that is not really being addressed in this bill.

Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister if certificates of approval were obtained by the individuals who moved the Cobex and the Cobex containers from the warehouse in Windsor to the scrapyard that compressed the containers. In my estimation, they still contained some of the liquid Cobex, a herbicide which, according to newspaper articles, if one believes them completely, one would be extremely concerned and disturbed about.

Here we have a hazardous herbicide that could be and has been extremely harmful to those who were not in direct touch with it but were within inhaling distance of some of the so-called fumes that might emanate from the liquid. Did the people who transported that Cobex obtain permission from the ministry?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Chairman, I am not personally familiar with the Cobex situation, although if the member is talking about the transportation of the material, and it is transportation for purposes other than disposal, it is not likely to be my ministry that would grant the approval at this time.

I think the more relevant part of the member's question is the

section relating to the disposal of the containers. I do not know the answer to the question as it applies to that, because it is only in the last day that I became aware of the problem as a result of a conversation with him. I think any industry or operation engaging in the disposal of possibly contaminated containers is something we would be interested in.

Mr. Newman: It is certainly a different situation in this instance. The containers shipped in from the United States were five-gallon containers. For the safety of the community and in an attempt to ship the chemicals back to the United States where they originally came from, the liquids were emptied into large, substantial containers; so there is the involvement of moving the Cobex chemical itself.

We are talking about 80,000 gallons of a herbicide. After it was in the large containers, the small containers had to be disposed of. In the disposition of the small containers which, in my estimation, still contained some Cobex, did they require a permit from this ministry to move those containers from the warehouse to the scrapyard that compressed the containers for eventual use as reclaimed metals?

Mr. Chairman: I point out to the honourable member that I have allowed a great amount of latitude in the discussion of this subsection. Possibly the minister will respond, but a future inquiry will have to relate a little more specifically to the subsection at issue.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Chairman, as a result of inquiries from the honourable member, the staff of my ministry are in the act of following up on it. I have not yet had an opportunity to be briefed by them on the details of that particular matter. I think we should recognize that this really has nothing to do with the principle of the bill.

Mr. Chairman: The chair is well aware of that point.

Shall subsection 3 carry? Carried.

On subsection 4?

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Chairman, I have a question of the minister on this subsection. His

interpretation of subsection 4 is that subsection I applies only in the absence of a contract to the contrary.

I am very concerned about this section, because I am wondering if this

section will allow the owner of the site to contract out of the responsibility of the waste ownership? In other words, could there be a situation where a limited company is formed and third parties could become involved? Could we end up with a situation where, after the originators of the waste have taken it to the site, the ownership of that waste then transfers?

What happens if subsequent to that we have leachates and problems underground? Who is responsible for the ground water problems, the cleaning up of the leachates, and moving material if need be, if they find the problems later? This relates to who might have to pay for that situation if it were to develop.

I wonder if the minister can respond to my concerns as to whether within the limits of this bill they could contract out that responsibility or contract themselves out of the sort of situation where there might have to be the ongoing security funds that the former minister addressed.

The minister understands that in some situations in the United States they have a superfund that is beginning to address that problem. Since the former minister talked about that kind of a fund back in October 1978 and in June 1979, and this minister suggested there might be something in the works to build such a situation as late as November of this year, I wonder if he can respond as to whether that can happen in this bill.

Hon. Mr. Norton: The short answer, Mr. Chairman, is no. If the member reads

section 40(a)(1), it stipulates that the ownership of waste is accepted; it is not dealing with liability or responsibility. Subsection 4 states that subsection I applies only in the absence of a contract to the contrary. In other words, the owner may contract with the operator of a site to retain ownership of the waste, but he may not contract out of the responsibility. This only deals with ownership, not liability or responsibility in the case of an environmental problem.

The reason for the inclusion of this

section is that there may be wastes containing levels of metal or whatever that would not be economically recoverable at the present time, but in the opinion of the generator of the waste it may be that, by storing that waste safely for a period of time, the technology may be available at some time in the future to recover it economically. I am just using this as an example. He may be able to economically recover more from that waste and, therefore, he may wish to retain its ownership and contract with the operator of the site on that basis to have it safely stored.

If an environmental problem were to develop, that contract would not absolve him. In fact, under this section, there is no provision for contracting out of responsibility.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Chairman, while I do not have a good enough law background to understand this question, ownership to me would also apply to liability. Is there a

section dealing with liability?

We have in my riding, in Harwich township, the exact situation the member for Niagara Falls was mentioning; I refer to the situation involving the Ridge Landfill Corporation, a subsidiary of Browning-Ferris Industries. During the environmental hearings this summer, it was brought out that the mound is actually saturated with leachates and they are coming out.

They are going to build a toe drain in the next two years, and then they will have leachates to deal with, which they have estimated, on the basis of 1981 dollars, will take $37 million over the next 100 years, during which it is expected these leachates will continue to come out. Certainly the Ridge Landfill Corporation is not good for $37 million. I do not even know whether Browning-Ferris Industries is good for that amount.

Where do we deal with the liability if it is not attached to ownership?

4:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Norton: If the member looks at the following section, Mr. Chairman, it states clearly that subsections I to 4 do not relieve any person from liability, except liability as owner of waste that is delivered to and accepted by the operator. In other words, it is saying the

section we are talking about now does not relieve the person from liability for dealing with the environmental problems.

There is liability, of course, arising out of ownership, but there is also liability arising out of control of the waste. As the member for Niagara Falls mentioned earlier, we do have in preparation the spill regulation, which I had hoped we would be able to get before committee for consideration this fall but, given the time constraints of the committee and the fact that we have not even begun our estimates yet, we may not be able to get time before the committee this fall. But we have done our homework.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, the other day when we were reading the bill, I asked the minister a question relating to

section 1 on

section 40a(2) of the act: "Where waste is deposited but not accepted at a waste disposal site, the ownership of the waste shall be deemed to be transferred to the operator of the site immediately before the waste is deposited."

Hon. Mr. Norton: I think we have passed that.

Mr. Chairman: We have; but is it a pressing issue?

Mr. Haggerty: Yes.

It just does not seem right to me that a person who was handling the material could come into a site and dump it there, perhaps unknown to the owner of the site, which could be the municipality, and the owner then would be liable for the waste that had been disposed of in this area. I do not think it is quite right that it should be interpreted that way.

The minister should be bringing the law into force so that a person who dumps industrial waste or liquid waste into any dump or disposal site without permission is charged for illegal dumping of material that has not been accepted by the operator of that site, which could be the municipality.

In my area pretty nearly all the disposal sites are operated by the municipality. However, there are some private ones too. It is possible, for instance, that in the Walker Brothers Quarries situation somebody could go in there, unknown to the owner, and dump waste material and then all of a sudden the owner would be notified that he was responsible for that being dumped there. The owner says, "No, you cannot dump it there," but the other person says, "It is going to be dumped."

Mr. Chairman: That is a good inquiry. I would like to hear the response to that.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Actually, I think these are interesting sections because if the material is being deposited without being accepted by the operator, the operator becomes the owner earlier than he would be if it were accepted. There is a good reason for that.

What the member says is quite true, if you know who the generator is who is bringing the material to a waste site without permission.

Mr. Haggerty: But licensed by the ministry.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Yes, the site is. But just a moment; I did not interrupt the member when he was asking his question.

Mr. Chairman: Right. I agree.

Hon. Mr. Norton: If you know who they are and the point at which they deposit, sure, that is when you get them. But surely the member also recognizes that more often than not if somebody is depositing it without permission it is probably being done when the operator, and maybe no one else, is around.

In the event that you do not know who deposited it, you do not want to stand around wringing your hands and saying, "Gee, it is too bad we can't do anything about this particular contaminant, which could do widespread damage, because the guy who put it here is unknown to us."

We are saying the onus is on the operator to take appropriate steps to make his site secure: to fence it, guard it and do whatever is necessary to protect himself from that kind of liability for people coming in without his permission.

This

section does not relieve the unwelcomed or unauthorized depositor of any liability. He is still liable if you know who he is and if you can catch him; but if you cannot, then the operator has the primary liability to make sure the site is secure and, if there is a spill on his property, to clean it up.

The operator is in the business, and part of the business of dealing with potentially hazardous substances is to make damned sure the site is safe. You do not leave it in a condition so that people can come wandering on to the site in the middle of the night, open the stopcock at the back of their truck and dump a load of liquid waste on the ground. One of the responsibilities of being in this business is to make sure you are handling things safely and preventing the irresponsible handling of these substances as much as is humanly possible.

Mr. Haggerty: Just to follow up on that point, I would like to use the city of Port Colborne as an example. They had a disposal site which they rented out to a contractor to look after the disposal and burning of waste material. A hauler licensed by the ministry transported goods to that site. Unknown to the municipality, that person dumped material that should never have been dumped there. The city is before the courts now trying to get this contractor to pay for replacing the firebrick that was burned out in the incinerator because of the very inflammable material that was dumped.

I say to the minister, looking at this particular section, that his ministry has the greater responsibility in this area, because it issued the licence for the hauler, who has to be licensed through his ministry. I think there is a good possibility you could still have haulers or contractors dumping industrial wastes that could be toxic into a site unknown to the operator of the site. Many municipalities may be caught in this crossfire in which they are responsible, although the licence was originally issued by his ministry. All I am trying to convey is that the minister has a bigger responsibility than anybody else through the enforcement of the licence.

In this particular case, I think the contractor -- the licensee or the carrier with the licence -- should have lost his licence. Yet in spite of all the infractions that occurred at this site, he is still in business. We do not know what he is doing right now; if he can get away with it there, he can probably get away with it on some dark side road in the marsh up at Wainfleet or some place like that. It is not the first time it has happened.

Mr. Chairman: I will have the minister respond if he would like to.

Mr. Haggerty: The barrels that were placed at that waste disposal site in Port Colborne contained phenol formaldehyde from Hooker Chemicals and, looking at that, when you talk to Hooker Chemicals --

Mr. Chairman: The minister wants to know what the question is.

4:20 p.m.

Mr. Haggerty: I am just saying that Hooker Chemicals thought the person hauling the material, licensed by the ministry, was disposing of it in the proper manner. But he was not.

I question that particular

section of that bill, because it is not explicit enough to say who is going to be responsible. To me, the responsibility lies with the person issuing the licence, and that is the ministry. If the fine should be there, it should be with the ministry. I hope we do not have to take the same approach that we did with the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow).

Hon. Mr. Norton: I greatly appreciate the confidence the member has in the ministry and in me. I realize, as far as the ministry is concerned, it is well justified confidence. I am sure some might question whether the confidence in me is entirely justified, but Tam not yet quite ready to bear the mantle of Big Brother.

Contrary to what the member seems to imply, we do not license people to do illegal things. He is saying if we licence them, that means we are responsible. We licence them to do certain things within the law. At this point we do not quite have the resources to have one member of our ministry staff riding shotgun in the cab of every truck on the highways in the province.

Mr. Haggerty: They would get the message, wouldn't they?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Yes, they might. But do not forget we do have a special investigations unit now. And, as far as those dark country roads are concerned, one never knows: if one sees a couple making the place look like lovers' lane, they might be special investigators from our unit; so be careful. They are a very clever and well trained lot, and they are going to crop up in the most unsuspected places anywhere in this province. They are watching around every corner; so do not dump illegally.

Mr. Nixon: Big Brother is watching.

Hon. Mr. Norton: That is right. But we cannot be in every truck. In the case of the example the member gave, if that individual carried a substance and illegally dumped it, the member is anticipating the powerful provisions in the latter part of the bill, that we will get to, to enforce situations like that. I am sure the member will accept it with great praise when he sees what we are getting to.

Mr. Chairman: We have allowed some latitude. Now we are on to subsection 5.

Mr. Nixon: Are you implying we have read no further in the bill than this?

Mr. Chairman: This is it. Shall subsection 4 carry? Carried.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Chairman, the minister said liability is dealt with in subsection 5 but, as I read it, it says: "Subsections 1 to 4 do not relieve any person from liability except liability as owner of waste that is delivered to and accepted by the operator of a waste disposal site in accordance with law If it is delivered in accordance with law, liability is transferred from the generator.

My worry is the $37-million loss that Harwich township possibly faces. It seems unlikely that they are going to able to get that from the Ridge Landfill Corporation, because as a corporation it could fold. It seems to me, as a resident of Harwich township, that I would want to feel I could go back after the Ford Motor Company, Imperial Oil, Dow Chemical or whoever was the generator; but I am precluded from doing that because it was put in legally.

I suppose there are arguments about that too, whether it was legal or not. But assuming it did go in legally, then who could the township go after, unless perhaps the ministry itself is willing to assume that obligation? That is a question that should be resolved before we pass this

section of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Norton: That question is not going to be resolved in this bill at this time because, as the member is probably aware, we are working on the matter of a perpetual care provision which would deal with that specifically. That is not something that is dealt with in this bill.

Mr. Chairman: Shall subsections 5 and 6 carry? Carried.

Section 1 agreed to.

section 2:

Mr. Chairman: Shall

section 47a(1) carry? Carried.

Shall

section 47a(2)(

a) carry? Carried.

Shall

section 47a(2)(

b) carry?

Mr. Kerrio: I have an amendment, Mr. Chairman; it is only to keep some sort of similarity between the Environmental Protection Act and this act. It is minor, but under

section I in the Environmental Protection Act -- in comparing the two, the Chairman will find that where this bill uses the wording "will result or is likely to result in," in the Environmental Protection Act they describe it as "operation of the vehicle will result or may result in." It is just a matter of bookkeeping and a feeling that if the minister accepts this amendment, we might get the ministry moving in the right direction.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The minister has an inquiry of you.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Which

section is the member reading from? He is referring to another section; is it

section I of the Environmental Protection Act?

Mr. Kerrio:

Section 1(1)(c). In the last line it uses the word "may."

Hon. Mr. Norton: I do not see what the member is referring to.

Mr. Chairman: Actually, I am missing the point too, Mr. Kerrio.

Mr. Kerrio: In this bill,

section 47a(2)(

b) reads, "that the continued operation of the vehicle will result or is likely to result in ... " In our amendment we are saying "that the continued operation of the vehicle will result or may result in instead of "likely."

Hon. Mr. Norton: The member, as I understood him, said that for consistency it ought to be worded the same way as

section I of the Environmental Assessment Act.

Mr. Kerrio:

Section 1(1)(c).

Hon. Mr. Norton:

Section 1(1)(

c) is a definition of "environment" in my copy of the bill.

Mr. Kerrio: Yes. We are only suggesting that the word should be "may" rather than the way it is written.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I must be blind, but I cannot see what he is referring to. Can my friend see what he is referring to?

An hon. member: Yes. Do you want me to explain it to you?

Hon. Mr. Norton: No, I do not want him to explain it. I just want to see it.

Let me read into the record, my

section 1(c).

Mr. Chairman:

Section 1(1)(c), apparently.

Hon. Mr. Norton:

Section 1(1)(c)?

Mr. Chairman: That is what he said.

Hon. Mr. Norton:

Section 1 in the Environmental Protection Act -- is he talking about the Environmental Protection Act?

Mr. Kerrio: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Okay. I thought he was trying to get a cross-reference to the other act.

Let me address the point I think makes the member's amendment particularly problematic. We are talking here about the enforcement provisions and the authority to seize the permit and number plates of a vehicle under certain circumstances. The wording we have in our bill says that where "the continued operation of the vehicle will result or is likely to result in," and there is a list of possibilities.

The member has to bear in mind we could have a situation where the vehicle involved was a rental vehicle. For example, it could be a vehicle that someone rented from the member, or from Budget or one of the other people in the business. If that is the case, the owner of the vehicle may not have been a party directly to the act; he may not have known precisely what his vehicle was being used for. Under circumstances like that, it may well be worth while to consider the possibility that as long as the vehicle is not used for that kind of purpose, the permit could be returned to the owner.

4:30 p.m.

Does the member intend that every time a vehicle is capable of being used for a repeated offence, one should not give the permit back or should not allow it to go? Or is the member suggesting if there is any real likelihood?

Mr. Kerrio: I am thinking more of a rea