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

February 9, 1983

32nd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

ORAL QUESTIONS

JARVIS CLARK CO.

DEATHS AT HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN

FACILITIES FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY HANDICAPPED

JOB CREATION

CORNWALL CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY

EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

CLOSING OF DYLEX PLANT

MARKET VALUE ASSESSMENT

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING (CONCLUDED)

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

ORAL QUESTIONS

JARVIS CLARK CO.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, my first question is to the Treasurer. He will recall that last Friday we discussed in this chamber, perhaps in his absence, the province's staggering unemployment figures for January 1983. There were figures indicating that something in the neighbourhood of 600,000 Ontarians are out of work.

Is the Treasurer aware that in the city of North Bay this morning at 10:30 the president of Jarvis Clark Co. announced that he would be shutting down that plant there at a loss of 205 permanent jobs to the city? I am sure the Treasurer will keep in mind that in 1981 the provincial government gave the Jarvis Clark Co. some $800,000 for an expansion of its operation. At the time, the expansion was promised to increase the overall complement and not, as it did this morning, to cost the city of North Bay some 205 jobs.

Can the Treasurer indicate whether he or his colleague the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker) was given any notice of the announcement by Jarvis Clark this morning? Could he also indicate whether or not they have initiated an investigation to ensure the employment pattern in this company in the north, specifically in North Bay, will be guaranteed and protected?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, that question had a

preamble that implied there was more unemployment in Ontario last month in actual terms than the month before. I am sure the member knows there were 8,000 more people employed last month than in the month before and 42,000 fewer unemployed. That is something he should keep in mind.

In terms of the specific question, I have been aware of the closing. I have not been aware of it in an official sense; I assume that went to my colleague the Minister of Industry and Trade, and I am sure he can spell out any conditions attached to the employment development fund money that apply to the Burlington location.

Mr. Conway: Am I to understand the Treasurer of this province, who has the lead responsibility for job creation and protection, is not aware at this hour of the situation in North Bay? The local media are quoting, very understandably, the outrage of their local representative, the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris), who apparently had no prior notice.

Can the Treasurer indicate whether the conditions of that grant in 1981 were lived up to? We were told at that time that 150 new jobs would be created and the North Bay plant would not be in jeopardy. I understand as well that the Minister of Industry and Trade toured the plant some months ago. Can the Treasurer undertake to find out whether the Minister of Industry and Trade was given any knowledge during that tour that this company, which was in receipt of $800,000 worth of grant funds from the people of Ontario, was not planning to expand by 150 jobs but to shut down 205 jobs in North Bay?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The member implies that every company that invested money in expansion in Ontario or anywhere else in the world in the last few years somehow knew there was going to be a dramatic recession such as we had last year.

He should bear in mind it is some time since I have seen the details of this case. However, as I recall, the very first question asked by the Employment Development Board at the time of the application was whether the expansion could take place in North Bay. The answer to that was not only no, but that the real competition was not even Canada.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, does the Treasurer recall that about a year or so ago when the Sudbury people were trying to put together a mining machinery complex there with Inco, Falconbridge and Jack Clark from the original Jack Clark firm, there was resistance from both the federal member for Nipissing, Jean-Jacques Blais, and from the provincial member for Nipissing? They said if public money went into the Sudbury operation, it would compete against the North Bay operation. They did not want to see a mining machinery complex in Sudbury taking jobs away from North Bay.

Now that this argument has proved to be as silly as we thought at the time, would the Treasurer assure us that if he is unable to convince Jarvis Clark to stay in North Bay, he will continue with the commitment his government originally made to put provincial money into a mining machinery complex in the Sudbury basin?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, my recollection is that Mr. Clark, who was the original founder of the company, was not the operator of the company at the time of the expansion. I believe he went to the United States and created a factory there. He either sold that factory or had plans to move it back to the Sudbury area about the time the member was talking about.

I recall the legitimate concern expressed by members at the time. They said, "Would you bring back a company duplicating the lines of another company in the north?" We wanted to be sure that was not happening, that it was an extra replacement of imports as the member has said so often. We wanted to be sure the two companies that would always compete on some items would not be mirror images of each other.

There has been some discussion on the Sudbury location of late. I do not know what stage that is at, but it is certainly not a dead issue.

2:10 p.m.

Mr. Conway: I just want to be clear. Will the Treasurer give this House an assurance that those jobs will not be lost to the city of North Bay? Will he assure us the commitment entered into some two years ago for this expansion to take place will not be at the expense of the north generally and North Bay in particular? Moreover, will the Treasurer give an undertaking to this House to scrutinize the conditions of that $800,000 grant very carefully, to ensure that if in any way it has been violated, that company will be held to account so that they do not receive public funds and then fail to live up to their end of the bargain?

Hon. F. S. Miller: On the first part, I would dearly love to guarantee the job of every person in the province. My colleague who is asking the question knows I cannot. On the second part, we will look at the agreement, of course. I believe the member will be quite satisfied to find that most agreements we have entered into have clauses that require performance before the funds are guaranteed.

Mr. Conway: I have a new question, for the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor), who is in the precincts but not in his place. While he takes his place --

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I have been on my feet five times in the last five minutes to ask a supplementary on a question that deals with a company in my riding. I probably have more information to shed on it than any other member of the House at this stage. I think I am entitled to a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Having heard you say that, I will listen to your supplementary.

Mr. Martel: He was on his feet.

Mr. Speaker: I did not see him; I am sorry.

Mr. Harris: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have a supplementary to both questions to the Treasurer in view of the fact that the Minister of Industry and Trade is not here at this time, although I understand he is coming. He may have a few more answers for me at that time.

The federal government through the Department of Regional Economic Expansion programs, and the provincial government through the Northern Ontario Development Corp. and the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development, are encouraging secondary industry and manufacturing in northern Ontario and have encouraged it with this company. In view of this and the short notice this company has given to both governments and to the citizens of North Bay about its intentions to move this operation to Burlington, I have called for the minister to do a couple of things which I would ask the Treasurer to support.

We should not worry about the agreements that are there. I have a legal opinion that if the company goes ahead it must repay to the province every nickel it has received from the province -- although the same cannot be said for some of the federal money. But I do not think that is the issue.

However, we have not been given enough time. I have called on the Minister of Industry and Trade to take the initiative in a co-operative way. In view of the interest of both the federal and provincial governments, they should convene a meeting right now with this company. They have not given us enough notice, or the time we are entitled to, for the amount of support we have given this company in the past.

I am calling on the Treasurer to support our Minister of Industry and Trade in taking the lead to convene this meeting with the company and Mr. Lumley, the DREE minister, who is his federal counterpart. We should have the company sit down for a talk with the federal member and myself. As I understand it they will have to repay all the money to the province if they leave. In view of this I think we should be able to sit down with the company to ascertain their long-range plans and perhaps convince them that they would like to stay in North Bay.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to support the member and the Minister of Industry and Trade in doing that and to emphasize to that company its responsibility to the employees of North Bay.

DEATHS AT HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question to the Solicitor General. Might I inquire as to the status of the police investigation into the situation at the Hospital for Sick Children?

I am keeping in mind that it was on May 25, 1982, that his colleague the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) said, and I quote: "I do appreciate that the public would probably be dissatisfied with an investigation that dragged on for a large number of months. An investigation that dragged on endlessly probably would not be consistent with maintaining public confidence in law enforcement in this province." I believe the chief of police is also quoted as saying it was important to be expeditious in this sensitive matter.

Can the Solicitor General give this House some indication today as to the status of that police inquiry? Can he say when the Legislature and the community at large can expect to have it in their possession?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, in commenting on ongoing police investigations, it is always difficult for the Solicitor General to comment on the status of each individual situation as it goes along. The learned member knows it is difficult for me to provide him with answers of that nature. He knows the difficulties of the situation and that there are ongoing investigations that may be disrupted by such answers in this Legislature.

Criminal charges may or may not be laid as a result of the investigations. There are all the other reasons of security, protection of individuals and protection of the evidence. There are many reasons one cannot give the precise status of an ongoing investigation and I cannot give that to the learned member at this time.

I guess the honourable member will not be content, but he will have to settle for the answer that it is ongoing. When the investigation is complete, and if there is sufficient evidence to warrant the laying of charges, that will be done at that time.

Mr. Conway: It is interesting to hear from the Solicitor General about his difficulty in dealing with the time lines. His colleague the Attorney General apparently had no difficulty nine months ago indicating, and I think very properly, the urgency of this inquiry. He suggested, properly, that if it were not proceeded with expeditiously and if the report were not forthcoming in a reasonable amount of time there would be some decrease in public confidence.

In view of the Attorney General's wise counsel in May 1982, in view of his sensible suggestion that time lines were important, how is it the Solicitor General eight and a half months later cannot enlighten this House more particularly as to the conclusion of this important and sensitive report?

Is it going to be next month, next quarter, next Christmas, next year? Surely the Solicitor General has this obligation. He must have sufficient information to tighten the time lines and today indicate more precisely to this House when that report is going to be in the public domain.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: If the member is not being facetious in his comments, I will say it will not be next year and it will not be next Christmas.

Coming back to the guidelines I am sure he wants as an answer, this is an important issue to the individuals who, as a result of the investigations, may or may not face criminal charges. It is an important issue for the individuals who have been so wrapped up in this matter in regard to the hospital, the parents and next of kin of the individuals. One must have regard to their feelings and their emotions. Naturally it is not going to be taken lightly.

I do not think the member even desires a precise date. He might be asking for that but I cannot give him a precise date at this time. It is ongoing. It is being investigated thoroughly. When the investigation is complete there will naturally be consultation with the Attorney General about its results and about what will take place as a result of its findings.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, it is now about 10 days since the Solicitor General received from his colleague the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) the report of Mr. Justice Dubin and his colleagues with respect to the Hospital for Sick Children.

Since he has now considered that report, will he please advise the House whether it has been turned over to the Ontario Provincial Police? Has this been done with a view to an investigation as to whether there is criminal liability of any kind involved for those who are responsible for the supervision and direction of that hospital?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question as to whether it will flow that way, no. But I can inform him the Ontario Provincial Police do have a copy of that document; the Ministry of the Solicitor General has a copy of that document; the coroner's people who are involved have a copy of that document and will be reviewing it to see if any further recommendations or any further actions will flow out of its contents.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Conway: I want the Solicitor General to be under no wrong impression about my feelings as to the first order of importance of getting a definite date out of the government for the tabling of that report. It is important to me and to hundreds and thousands of other people in this province. The minister should not be under any wrong impression about my desire for a specific deadline. I, like the Attorney General, want to see it brought forward as soon as possible.

Would the Solicitor General clear a bit of the air on something that appears to be a contradiction between the Hospital for Sick Children and the Attorney General? The hospital not many weeks ago produced an internal investigation that suggested there were possibly valid medical reasons for the deaths of those children. But comments attributed to the Attorney General indicated he did not imagine the police investigation would be going on if there were not a reasonable likelihood of some sort of wrongdoing. Can he clear the air on that contradiction?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: If the honourable member desires a clearing of the air around the comments of the Attorney General, I suggest he direct his questions to the Attorney General.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence --

Mr. Speaker: No. Order.

Mr. Conway: He has already said I could.

Mr. Speaker: No, the minister is the only one who can redirect.

Mr. Conway: Yes, but he did.

Mr. Speaker: No, he did not. New question.

Mr. Conway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I have on many occasions indicated my personal amazement and incredulity about that idiotic rule, but it is in our rules. I cannot believe that a reasonable person would not interpret what the Solicitor General did in that last answer as a redirection to his colleague the Attorney General.

Mr. Speaker: He specifically said, as I recall, that if you wanted an answer to that question you should better ask it of the Attorney General. He did not redirect.

New question: the member for Bellwoods.

Mr. Foulds: Nice try, Sean.

Mr. Martel: You wanted four for the price of three.

Mr. Ruston: Thirty for 22.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. McClellan: Perhaps you could name the principal offender.

FACILITIES FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY HANDICAPPED

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. The minister is aware of my interest in his tri-ministry project, which was announced in March 1980. The announcement read, just to refresh your memory, Mr. Speaker:

"Beginning with children and young adults" -- and these are young children and adults who are mentally retarded living in homes for special care and nursing homes -- "government teams will assess each resident's needs, taking into account these individual assessments. Mentally retarded residents then will be given the opportunity to participate in specialized developmental training to the extent that each can benefit. These diverse programs will include such areas as formal education, social and recreational activities."

Is the minister aware of Yves Soumelidis, age 21, who had a developmental handicap and was living in the Ark Eden Nursing Home? He died on March 4, 1982, in circumstances that quite frankly are appalling. They were described by the Minister of Health in these words on page S-805 of Hansard on January 26: "Let me finally make it very clear that I've been appalled by the circumstances in this case. The situation is totally intolerable." Again Mr. Grossman says, "it is obviously an intolerable situation."

Is the minister aware that the late Mr. Soumelidis was a client of the tri-ministry project and that he had had an individual assessment and an individual care plan developed by the ministry?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am; and before the honourable member asks a supplementary, the remarks he made in my colleague's estimates are dead wrong. The plan was filed on site and is being implemented, and I would appreciate it if he would apologize to the ministry.

Mr. McClellan: I was citing the evidence of the inquest in the estimates -- the evidence of the attending doctor and of the director of nursing of Ark Eden Nursing Home. That was their evidence at the inquest, and I made that clear.

I have a report from the project co-ordinator of the tri-ministry project dated January 27, 1982, just prior to the final illness of Mr. Soumelidis precipitated by hypothermia. The report said all 42 clients of the Ark Eden Nursing Home had been assessed and that a service plan was being developed for all of them. Is the minister aware that at the time this report was written, the evidence of the inquest is that the temperature in the nursing home was between 65 and 70 degrees?

Yves, of course, suffered from hypothermia. The residents were being awakened at 6 a.m. and fast fed in order to save money, despite the fact that many of them had medical conditions that led to a hazard of aspiration. Yves died of aspiration pneumonia. Eighteen adult-sized residents were being kept in infant-sized cribs, and on January 1982 there were at least 10 fire-safety violations.

In short, can the minister explain how his ministry did an individual assessment of each of those 42 residents and an individual treatment plan for each of them at a time when they were living in appalling violations of the Nursing Homes Act and the Child Welfare Act? How did the minister manage to miss all those violations at the same time as his staff was doing an individual assessment and individual treatment plan?

Hon. Mr. Drea: First of all, as the honourable member knows, the role of this ministry is to provide an individual assessment for program purposes. The conditions of the premises where the people are is the responsibility of the Ministry of Health.

The member tried to give the impression we were doing a treatment assessment. We were not doing a physical treatment assessment; it was a program assessment. The responsibility for the overall condition of the premises rests with the Ministry of Health. In the remarks the member made earlier, he is only reporting what he heard at the inquest.

It is common knowledge from the inquest, if the member was there, that those plans and the implementation of them were on file in the service co-ordinator's office on the very day the member made his allegations during the estimates of the Minister of Health. They are there today and the member is welcome to go and see them. The member maintains they only existed in a drawer in the ministry and were not on site.

In fairness, the doctor would not be terribly interested in a program plan. He has other interests. However, at least one of the allegations the member has made, the question of the size of the beds, was drawn to the attention of the Ministry of Health by my ministry. If the member wants a full report on the physical conditions at the Ark Eden Nursing Home I suggest it should come from the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman). I understand the Minister of Health will have a complete report available this week on that.

I am not particularly favourably disposed towards the continuation of the joint program -- I exclude the Ministry of Education, which really only provides some technical expertise. I am not particularly favourably inclined towards a continuation of the tri- or bi- or joint ministry approach towards the people in homes for special care. In a few weeks I will have something to say about that.

If the member wants to come back to where the complaints go, they go to the inspection services branch of the Ministry of Health, because it is they who license the nursing home; they have the remedial measures. In the case of the beds, we drew it to the attention of the Ministry of Health for some action, and one of the cases that was drawn to the attention of the ministry was of the individual who died.

2:30 p.m.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, all the good intentions of the Ministry of Community and Social Services with respect to the tri-ministry project will not bring Mr. Soumelidis back. Nevertheless, if the minister has been in touch with officials who assisted at the coroner's inquest, he knows Mr. Soumelidis is one of two children who suffered institutionalization because of his retarded condition, and Mr. Soumelidis's father had no problems with this nursing home until there was a change of ownership. I am sure if the minister has had a chance to speak with Mr.

Soumelidis Sr. he will know it was the change of ownership that was the beginning of the problems that ultimately resulted in the hypothermia reaction of Mr. Soumelidis.

What moral suasion or pressure can the Minister of Community and Social Services bring to bear on the Ministry of Health so the new regulations already promised by the Minister of Health with respect to homes for special care will be brought in so that we do not see another Jimmy Black or another Yves Soumelidis?

Mr. Speaker: Just before the minister answers that question, I ask the co-operation of all honourable members in limiting their private conversations.

Hon. Mr. Drea: First, Mr. Speaker, so there is no misunderstanding, I draw to the attention of the honourable member that Mr. Black was not a client of this ministry. He was entirely, at all relevant times, a client of the Ministry of Health who happened to be developmentally handicapped. I have already consulted with my colleague the Minister of Health. I am in full support, which I think is an understatement, of some of the remedies he is proposing. I understand he has talked about those in general. I am in more than full support of them.

I draw to the member's attention that on my own behalf, for my clients, who are approximately 35 to 40 per cent of the population in homes for special care, I have some new approaches I would like to take to their domicile, quite independently of the Ministry of Health.

Mr. McClellan: I have to confess I still cannot comprehend -- I mean this quite sincerely -- how it was possible for officials of the Ministry of Community and Social Services to do an individual assessment of each of the 42 residents in that nursing home and ignore the fact that the temperature was below normal and adult-size residents were being kept in infant-size cribs. That is a fairly obvious thing to notice. I fail to understand why that was not reported and why it was not pursued under the conditions of the Child Welfare Act, if satisfaction was not obtained from the Minister of Health.

Is the minister not aware that Mr. Soumelidis first appealed to his ministry in July 1981? Mr. Soumelidis wrote to Les Horne in the child advocacy unit, which I believe was attached to the minister's own office, and appealed to Mr. Horne to look into the situation and to redress his grievances as a parent but no action was taken.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, on the question of the size of the beds, I point out to the honourable member -- and this is the third time I have had to say it to him -- we drew that to the attention of the people in charge, the Ministry of Health.

Mr. Foulds: And you let it continue.

Mr. Cassidy: So the government is to blame, not just you.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Drea: In terms of the temperature, in fairness there is no evidence by our people about ever being in there when the temperature was at that level.

In terms of any appeals by Mr. Soumelidis Sr., those were looked into. Indeed, if there were complaints that were normally under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Health, they were directed to the Ministry of Health; up until that time, that was the normal procedure. I ask the member not to do the Pontius Pilate routine on me. He sat in those estimates and he still has not admitted he was wrong.

Mr. McClellan: That is because I was not wrong.

Hon. Mr. Drea: He made wild allegations in a press release which he now knows were not true.

Mr. McClellan: I don't believe you, sir.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: At all, Frank.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Back to the question, please.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I say to my friend, I suppose the only alternative is to take the appropriate legal action.

JOB CREATION

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, you will be relieved to know I am not going to ask a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea).

An hon. member: You're afraid to.

Mr. Martel: You're right. He is going to eat us up.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Oh, my God. It is for the good of the House, believe me. I will ask a question of the Treasurer.

We are all aware that the welfare figures for Metro Toronto came out recently and showed a 13,000 increase in recipients over the last year. Is the Treasurer aware that in Windsor they have finally broken the 5,000 figure; that in Sault Ste. Marie the year-over-year, January-to-January figures show a 44 per cent increase; that in London there is a 40 per cent increase; that in Hamilton there is a 34 per cent increase; that in Thunder Bay there was a nine-point increase just month over month, from December to January; and that in the Niagara region there was a 49 per cent increase in the number of recipients on welfare?

As the minister knows most of these new people are employable, will he tell us today what he is doing to help those people get work and to help those municipalities pay the bills which are affecting them so severely?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I believe that while most municipalities are feeling the strain, as are all governments today with the increased costs of helping people who are unemployed, most have so far paid their share royally. I do not think that is the issue. The issue is how to get those people jobs. On that side, I go back to the growing speed with which the new employment expansion and development program and the Canada-Ontario employment development program are starting to approve the projects of municipalities and are starting to produce the 30,000 promised jobs.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: If the Treasurer looks at this compilation of the figures, which I would like to send him, he will notice that in the course of just a month or so in some of the municipalities there has been an increase of about 500 people on the rolls. That is more than has been created so far by his make-work programs.

Does the Treasurer not realize this is an issue that affects not only large urban areas but also many smaller communities, such as the town of Prescott which has had an increase of 31 per cent in the last month, and his own district of Muskoka where the increase has been 38 per cent year over year? Not only that, but the costs to his municipality have gone up 108 per cent in the last year.

What do we have to do to make this a matter of urgency to him so he can understand the human tragedy that is going on across this province and act more quickly than he has in the past?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am glad the honourable member mentioned my riding. I sense the people in my riding have been more familiar with this type of cycle than many. I am also pleased to see that at least one town in my riding has already had an approval providing 112 work weeks and eight jobs right away.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, in the Treasurer's first answer he said the issue was how to get these people jobs. He knows one of the ways we are trying to get people re-employed is through training programs. That is the nature of my supplementary.

Could he have a chat with his colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services, whose ministry has ruled that municipalities cannot top off the difference between the allowances received by workers who are being retrained and the amount those workers could receive in unemployment insurance or, in the case of this issue, in welfare?

Could the minister have a chat with his colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services and suggest to him that the failure of his provincial government to offer support for those workers who are trying to be retrained is discouraging them from getting the training they need to get back into the job market?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services and I have a lot more than chats and I am quite sure, if he has a point to make or if I have a point to make, we have ways of doing it.

Of the 50 million that Ontario brought out for the three-month period, as I recall, $5 million was specifically for

section 39 of the Unemployment Insurance Act. I think the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) was involved in that. It was aimed at exactly what the member is saying; that is, helping people to retrain.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, the minister may be aware that my region of Durham has the dubious distinction of having a 10 per cent increase over last month and a 27 per cent increase in general welfare assistance recipients over January 1982. He may also know we have a 16.5 per cent unemployment rate.

What is the minister's response to the request of the region of Durham to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario for some short-term assistance to meet the pressure that is being put on that region by the 50 or more applicants who are walking into its social services department every day?

What do the people at the counters say? Do they offer the minister's political answer, that there is some NEED program or whatever? What do the people on those councils say to their constituents and to the applicants who are in desperate need of some assistance right now? What is their response?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member represents the only city in Ontario that had a decrease in unemployment over last year. I hope he understands that. It is the only such city largely because General Motors is retooling and rehiring people. In a bad year, that is a pretty good move. I hope the member will understand that --

Mr. Breaugh: No. I do not understand that.

Hon. F. S. Miller: That is fine. The member does not understand that his city did better than any other city in Ontario?

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege: There are some things I do understand, and one is that the use of statistics often leads to falsifications. There are lots of things I understand, but I cannot understand how a 16.5 per cent unemployment rate could be taken in any consideration to be good.

CORNWALL CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I have an answer to a question previously asked by the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) on January 31, regarding the Lancaster detachment of the Ontario Provincial Police.

The Lancaster detachment of the OPP received a call on October 30, 1982, from the foster father of a 15-year-old girl, and he advised the police that the girl had told him she had been raped two weeks earlier.

Two officers were at the girl's foster home within minutes of the call being received. The girl told the police officers she had been raped 11 days earlier in a shed during a party at her natural mother's residence and she was pregnant as a result. Members of her family and others who attended the party were also interviewed by the police.

At the conclusion of the investigation it was clear to the investigating officer and to one of his superiors with whom he consulted that there was no proper basis on which to lay a charge of rape. There was not even sufficient evidence to justify seeking the advice of the local crown attorney.

In a column last month in the Toronto Star, Michele Landsberg stated flatly that the girl had been raped and suggested the police had not acted properly in failing to cause a charge of rape to be laid. As a result of that column and questions in this Legislature, I asked for a review of the police investigation, and I am now prepared to report on the result of that review to the extent that it is possible for me to comment publicly.

I think anyone commenting on a matter such as this must exercise great care to ensure that the interests of the girl and her family are properly protected. Accordingly, I do not intend to comment in detail on the precise reasons the police arrived at the conclusion that no charges were appropriate, except to say their investigation revealed some evidence that was completely inconsistent with the original complaint.

Detective Sergeant Latham, a senior and very experienced investigator, has reviewed the original investigation. He has consulted with the local crown attorney. They are both satisfied that the original investigation resulted in the appropriate conclusion. The Deputy Solicitor General, Mr. McLeod, and Deputy Commissioner Ferguson have reviewed the conduct of the investigation and are satisfied that it was conducted properly and arrived at the correct result.

The member for Prescott-Russell, quoting from Ms. Landsberg's column, asked in the Legislature during my absence whether a constable who spoke to Ms. Landsberg would be removed from the case if the quotes attributed to him were correct.

The question of whether the constable referred to in Ms. Landsberg's column was accurately quoted is being reviewed by senior OPP personnel. At present, I can only state that the quotations attributed to him do not reflect the attitude and practice of the OPP and other police forces in this province.

Having said that, however, he was not the investigating officer in this case. Rather, he was one of the officers on duty in the detachment when Ms. Landsberg called. The investigating officer was Constable McDonell, who was the closest to the girl's foster home at the time the police were first notified, and he was the most experienced officer on duty at the time.

Ms. Landsberg also reported that the doctor who examined the girl was "convinced" she was raped. The doctor has been interviewed by Detective Sergeant Latham and has stated that he said no such thing to Ms. Landsberg or anyone else.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, can the minister assure this House that the remarks attributed to the police officer, plus the confidential information regarding the past sexual behaviour of that teenager which somehow escaped from the Cornwall Children's Aid Society -- I did not say anybody spread it about -- will not in any way influence the recommendations or decisions made in the OPP investigation of that case? Can he assure us that will not happen?

Two very serious things have happened here that could potentially affect the case: the comments of one of the officers and the leak of very confidential and damaging information to that young lady.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: I am not aware of the exact information that, to use the honourable member's word, escaped from the children's aid society. However, since there are no further proceedings being contemplated in this matter which the OPP will be acting upon, other than that which is internal as to the conduct of the officer and which is being investigated by personnel, as I just mentioned in my statement, I cannot foresee the member's problem at this time.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary that comes out of the minister's answer to the previous question. I want to be very clear as to what the minister is saying here today, because we obviously do not have copies of the minister's answer.

Was the minister saying the young girl knew she was pregnant before she reported the rape? That is what I inferred from what he said. I would very much like to have that cleared up.

Also, will the minister tell us which doctor examined her? He knows there was more than one doctor. Will he give us the name of the doctor who examined her? That also might be confusing the situation.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I do not have it in my material at this time, but I can provide the name of the doctor. I will get the name of the doctor referred to in my statement and provide that information to the honourable member.

I cannot comment on the other question he asked, as to the statements made. I do not know whether the member wants to draw an inference from what I have said, but I said there was insufficient evidence turned up by the officers which precluded them from proceeding further or laying any criminal charges.

EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour concerning a matter that probably has gained national importance, because it is a problem across the country and not just in our province. It concerns job listing agencies.

Luisa D'Amato and Larry Welsh, who are an investigative reporting team from the St. Catharines Standard, visited one of these job agencies, in particular Jobmart, and contacted 74 out of 119 employers who were listed in a list purchased last Thursday. Seventy per cent of those employers said their openings were listed with Canada Manpower or in a local newspaper; only 28 per cent agreed they were listed exclusively with Jobmart; one per cent said there was no opening at all; 35 per cent of the 81 openings listed were actually filled before the list was purchased by the investigators; and 23 per cent of the employers did not even know their positions were listed with Jobmart.

2:50 p.m.

In view of these facts and in view of the situation where these agencies appear to be preying on those who are desperate for jobs in these difficult economic times and giving the impression that if people pay the $50 or whatever sum is asked for they are somehow guaranteed a job, will the minister do as I asked in December, along with the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini), and undertake, in conjunction with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr.

Elgie), a very thorough investigation of these job listing agencies, using what we call ghost clients, if necessary, to ensure they are fulfilling the obligations they have stated in their ads in the newspaper and to the people who come and pay their money to them?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to try to respond to the honourable member, although I do believe the question more appropriately should be directed to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

At present, the Ministry of Labour registers only those agencies that undertake to locate employment for a client. Job listing agencies such as the member has just described come under the Business Practices Act; therefore, if there is an investigation, I believe it should be done by my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

In that respect, I wish to advise that the minister just before or after Christmas -- a few weeks ago, in any event -- did send out a bulletin to consumers cautioning them about this type of service and urging them to contact the ministry if they felt there was any misrepresentation so his ministry could investigate the matter.

Mr. Bradley: Looking at it from the point of view of the Minister of Labour, is the minister prepared to comment in this House this afternoon on the morality of taking advantage of very difficult economic times and very high unemployment to set up a business whereby you charge people $50, $75 or even $80 to look at a list of jobs available?

While I recognize that apparently they are not doing anything outside the law, I think an investigation would prove they are not living up to their advertising. But will the minister comment on the morality of doing that to desperate people in these difficult economic times?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I have no hesitation in commenting if what the member tells me is correct; and I am not implying for a moment that it is not correct. If such is going on, then I think it is a very questionable practice.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour about the statement by Doern, Prince and McNaughton for the Royal Commission on Health and Safety Arising from the Use of Asbestos, regarding unorganized workers where they quote:

"However, all agree the job of inspector in a small unorganized establishment is made particularly difficult by the tenuous position of the employee. It is almost trite to point out that the internal responsibility system cannot operate effectively where a worker thinks or fears that he jeopardizes his job every time he lodges a complaint. Prohibition of reprisals notwithstanding, an employer can almost always find some excuse to dismiss an obstreperous employee."

Can the minister give us an assurance that he will take every action possible to protect those workers who are most vulnerable in the unorganized plants in the province? And can he assure us that he will take swift action against any employer who is involved in reprisals against employees who are attempting to protect their health?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member raised this matter during estimates, and I answered at some length at that time. Obviously his supplementary question is going to give me the name of the employer; so perhaps I will just wait and get that information from him.

Mr. Martel: All right: it is Wilco. My friend the minister is aware that I have raised Wilco regarding lead poisoning in London on a number of occasions.

Is the minister aware of the following facts?

Mr. Mohsir Najjar, a five-year worker in the shipping department at Wilco, was told in January that he would have to do his own job plus drive a forklift in the tube mill. When Mohsir offered medical evidence that his respiratory problems precluded his being exposed to lead, he was laid off the same day.

In the case of Brad Tunks, a young tube mill assistant, he was literally poisoned from overexposure to lead at Wilco, and suffered nerve damage. He was told in July 1982 that his compensation benefits were terminated because his blood lead test showed a reduced level and he could return to work. He did so and was immediately laid off.

In the case of Dan Wood, who had his blood level checked in September 1982, Wilco management would not tell him what his level was. However, he was moved from the tube mill and two weeks later was laid off.

Is the minister aware that a lawyer, Mr. Dan Bangarth, was retained by four of the young men affected, all of whom are between the ages of 18 and 23, and arranged for all of them to be on compensation, and that the second they were fit to resume work all four of them were laid off?

Finally, is the minister aware that Wilco still has not implemented the ventilation program, as it was supposed to do after the minister had shut it down because it failed to do a lead assessment?

Can the minister tell me when he is going to move against this company which, in my opinion, has criminally affected the lives and the health of so many workers in that particular plant?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am aware of the circumstances the member has described. The files in respect to the circumstances he has raised in the House today are in our legal branch at present.

CLOSING OF DYLEX PLANT

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Minister of Labour. It deals with the weaknesses in the Employment Standards Act, especially as typified by the so-called rationalization of the work force at Dylex.

The minister will recall from estimates and other questions that on November 30, Dylex Ltd. closed its Lakeshore Boulevard operation. Two months before that, 42 employees received notice of termination and another 103 were offered alternative employment at the company's Weston Road plant. The minister also knows that among the 42 who were terminated were some employees with the greatest seniority.

The minister will further know that all the workers transferred to the Weston Road plant were placed at the bottom of the seniority list, even though many of them had worked for the company longer than the Weston Road workers.

Finally, he will know that as soon as the workers settled into the new plant, many of them were laid off. In fact, the layoff process with regard to the existing Weston Road workers had begun prior to the December I rationalization.

I am aware the matter has been under investigation by the ministry, but it has now been some two and a half months since the Lakeshore Boulevard plant closed. Will the minister tell us the precise status of the investigation and when he intends to report to the aggrieved workers on this situation?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the matter that has been brought forward by the honourable member. Everything he has indicated is known to us. In fact, the member brought a number of those workers to the estimates debate --

Mr. Wrye: They came by themselves.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Whether he brought them or whether they came themselves is really immaterial to the point I was going to make.

I was very much impressed by the manner in which these people conducted themselves. They had every cause to be outraged and bitter and to lash out at the system and the government. They did not do so. They sat through a couple of nights of very dull, lengthy statements by this minister and the members opposite, and they never raised a fuss of any kind. I feel a particular affinity with these workers.

As the member said, the matter is being investigated by the employment standards section. I should have a complete report on it in the very near future.

3 p.m.

Mr. Wrye: I hope the minister will report to the House when he does have that report. If there are no changes coming out of this, then I think it is fair to say that some of those workers will become angry, bitter and frustrated.

In the light of the serious flaws or shortcoming in the Employment Standards Act which the Dylex situation has exposed, will the minister undertake to consider introducing amendments to that act in the spring session? Will he consider such amendments as reducing the requirement that 50 employees be terminated as a condition for qualification for severance pay, an amendment to provide a more precise definition to the term "reasonable alternative employment," keeping in mind what has happened at the Weston Road plant, and finally an amendment to enshrine the protection of the important, hard-won seniority rights in the so-called transfer of employment?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Just for the record, I understand 103 employees were offered alternative employment and a total of 23 refused the offer. A further eight are having their cases investigated by the employment standards branch at this very time.

In direct response to the honourable member, I would also advise that there is a task force within our ministry that is studying various aspects of the Employment Standards Act and this is one of the things they are looking at.

MARKET VALUE ASSESSMENT

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing -- not that I want to interrupt his conversation.

I imagine the minister is aware that the Ministry of Revenue has completed its project and kept it secret for a while on the movement to market value assessment in Metropolitan Toronto. I imagine he is also aware that in this morning's Globe and Mail the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) was quoted as saying he was prepared to propose it be implemented even if the city of Toronto did not want it.

I am interested in the position of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing on imposing a market value assessment scheme on the city of Toronto that without question would amount to the financial rape of the city of Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Very clearly, Mr. Speaker, when cabinet has made a decision in relationship to the request from Metropolitan Toronto, that will be announced publicly.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: "Let them eat Bill 127," he said.

Mr. Breaugh: I do not know why everybody over there hates the city of Toronto.

Is the minister prepared to assist the rest of us in taking a look at this secret document by having it tabled in the House? Will he please address himself to the question which was put: whether he thinks it is fair and reasonable for any municipality in a region, like Metro or Durham, to have imposed upon it something which it sees as being evil even though the other members of that particular municipality might like that evil?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I repeat, when cabinet has made a decision in relationship to the request by Metropolitan Toronto, I am sure the minister --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Give Yuri a copy.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I have certainly got the parrots squawking this afternoon, haven't I? I really have. We will get them a biscuit in a minute.

Mr. Speaker: Now back to the question.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: At the moment, as members know, there is no legislation that allows for a Metro-wide

section 63 reassessment position. If that should be entertained by cabinet, obviously there will be discussions relating to what number of municipalities will have to participate or wish to have it brought about in their particular area.

As far as the report in relation to Metropolitan Toronto is concerned, if the member wishes to ask the Minister of Revenue tomorrow, he can be my guest.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. Barlow from the standing committee on general government presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill 14,

An Act to revise the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Ordered for third reading.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING (CONCLUDED)

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned last evening at 10:30, I was taking

part in the debate on the concurrences of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I said at that time I regretted the minister was not present, because the matter I wanted to deal with pertained to a very personal action he had taken as minister and I wanted to discuss it with him.

I completed about two thirds of my comments, and I do not intend to go back over all of that.

Perhaps the minister will have taken time to read something of Hansard from last evening so he will be aware of the comments I made about his action in approving the inclusion of 65 acres of the unique lands of Niagara within the urban development boundaries of Niagara region without holding any hearing, even though the Ontario Municipal Board had set those boundaries after some three years of hearings and deliberation, even though it had said those boundaries should be considered permanent and even though the minister set a precedent in Ontario by calling the action of an organization like the Preservation of Agricultural Land Society frivolous in asking that this matter be referred to the OMB for a hearing.

I pointed out last evening that this same parcel of land had been turned down by the OMB a number of years ago, that the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake had asked that it be deferred from the massive hearings that took place on the urban boundaries with the clear implication that if they wished to proceed with it at some time, it would go to the board.

But the minister decided for his own reasons, about which one can make many conjectures but can offer no explanation, that he would not even have the OMB deal with this. It is of some significance that the costs of the hearings on the urban development boundaries in Niagara of the lands that were in dispute were so serious it cost something like $400 an acre, yet he now can put in 65 acres of land without ever letting it go to the OMB.

The minister gave a number of reasons why he was classing the Preservation of Agricultural Land Society's action as frivolous, none of which would stand up under examination. He put himself in the place of the municipal board in making the decision.

One of the reasons he gave was that the land was not very valuable; it was not very good agricultural land. Any objective analysis would prove it was good agricultural land, unique agricultural land. In fact, PALS hired Mr. J. E. Gillespie, BSA, MSA, a soil research scientist with extensive experience in soil surveys of several counties in Ontario who was commended by the Ontario Municipal Board as an excellent and knowledgeable witness, was under contract with the federal Department of Agriculture to provide soil reports on soils in northern Ontario and was formerly with the University of Guelph.

3:10 p.m.

He made this report for the Preservation of Agricultural Land Society:

"This area is mapped as Haldimand clay loam on the soil map for Lincoln county and rated as class 2W land for agriculture. At a more detailed level of mapping, 20 to 30 per cent could be delineated as moderately poorly drained. These areas can be detected on the aerial photographs as small dark patches, profile description 192, as characteristically resembling a moderately poorly drained soil. The soil profile has developed in lacustrine materials overlying clay texture tillage and has a class 2 capability for agriculture.

"The Iroquois Beach lies directly to the north, providing excellent air drainage, and the drainage channelled to the west offers a good outlet for surface or tile drainage. These soils are suitable for the production of grapes, pears, plums, cherries or general farm crops. The areas surrounded by class I soils are represented by profile description 193."

There is an expert on soils who said this is unique and very important agricultural land. In fact, in the Niagara Peninsula it is probably as important as any agricultural land in Canada and, of course, in northern Ontario. One has to conclude that the minister did not want that kind of evidence to come out at the hearing. That kind of evidence would indicate that the Ontario Municipal Board, after the decision it had made previously, would have turned it down at the OMB hearing. The minister wanted to bypass that.

The minister said the request of the Preservation of Agricultural Land Society was frivolous. Of course, he did not mean that. He was trying to find some way he could get around sending this to the OMB, so he had to use the term "frivolous." The Oxford dictionary which is supplied to us here at Queen's Park says it means, "paltry, trumpery, trifling, futile, not serious, silly." He is applying these to PALS, which was commended by the Ontario Municipal Board for taking the lead in the fight to preserve the fruit lands in Niagara. Those are the terms he applies to the Preservation of Agricultural Land Society.

I would like to read the decision of the OMB from the 160-page document in which it determined the boundaries of the Niagara region. I will read from page 160:

"At the close of his argument Mr. Devine submitted to the board that costs in a nominal amount of $2,000" -- Mr. Devine was there for the developers -- "be levied against PALS, Dr. Kruger and Mel Swart. Although this submission was supported to some extent by some of the other solicitors appearing before the board in the final stage of this hearing, the suggested levy is not justified in our opinion.

"There seemed to be some feeling that those three parties alone caused the length of this hearing and put the other parties to considerable expense in presenting their cases. It was pointed out early in this decision that PALS, Dr. Kruger and Mel Swart were responsible for 13 of the 59 referrals of land designations dealt with in this decision."

I should intervene to say we were responsible for only 13 of the 59, but those 13 were referred to substantial parcels of land and represented something more than half of the total amount of 5,000 acres that was in dispute.

"Their referral sought additional reduction, some justified and some not, in the urban areas described in the cabinet's decision in February 1977. There was an onus on them to show that the lands in the 13 referrals should be excluded from the urban areas. However, the remainder of 46 parcels resulted from 50 requests for referral from municipalities, 11 from owners and 39 from developers who were not satisfied with the cabinet's decision of February 1977 and wanted those urban areas increased by additional land, some justified and some not.

"In our opinion, in view of the Food Land Guidelines there was onus on those parties to satisfy the board that their land should be included in the urban area just as much as there was onus on PALS, Dr. Kruger and Mel Swart with respect to their referrals.

"In opposing these requests" -- and this is the important part -- "for addition to the urban areas, it appears to us that PALS was acting in good faith in attempting to carry out what it perceived to be a necessary role as a supporter of cabinet's decision in 1977 and protector of the public interest in respect of preservation of the tender fruit lands since there was no other volunteer to undertake the task.

"The hearing would have been short, of course, if the board had been given a one-sided presentation, but on the other hand, the presence of the opposition propelled the agricultural associations and some members of the public, resulting in a thorough testing of the evidence on both sides and more information than would have been available otherwise. There will be no order for costs."

In this document, we have two things. First, we have the statement by the board of the importance of what PALS did. Second, there is the need to hear both sides of an issue. Now we have the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) breaking those urban boundaries to include another 65 acres, and, in doing so, calling PALS's request to refer it to the Ontario Municipal Board for a hearing frivolous and putting that land within those boundaries without the other side being heard. What an injustice.

Is the minister trying to tell us that PALS was frivolous in defending the preservation of that prime agricultural land? If the group was not frivolous then, it is not frivolous now in opposing this matter. There is no precedent in Ontario history -- I challenge the minister to state any precedent -- of any minister not having referred an issue when there was a request by an organization like PALS or an individual who had a vested interest in it.

I wonder what the minister is going to do about the next 200 acres that Niagara-on-the-Lake wants in the urban boundaries. What is the minister going to do when that comes before him and a bylaw is passed? Is he going to include that? If he includes 65 acres, why can he not include another 200 acres without having a hearing? What a farce the boundaries have become, solely because of that minister.

When the minister gets up to reply to all of us who have been speaking on this, I want him to reply to this question: What was the need to include it? Nobody wants to buy that to develop it. There are another 250 acres of vacant land there. What was the need to go through the tremendous step of breaking urban boundaries that were set just two years ago, when there has been no growth in the area since?

There are, within 10 kilometres of this roughly 365-acre parcel of industrial land, 4,000 acres zoned as industrial that have never been developed. Why would he put it in? Why would he break his own law? He knows he broke his own law. He knows the request was not frivolous. He broke his own Planning Act by not referring that matter to the Ontario Municipal Board.

Why was it done without a hearing? I have already mentioned the precedent of the Niagara Peninsula, the most crucial area for the preservation of agricultural land in this whole nation.

Why would he have done it when there was a clear indication at the time of deferral that, if it was going to be proceeded with, it would go to the OMB?

I suggest this is the most flagrant use of political patronage. The person who owns the bulk of this property is a well-known Conservative who tried to get the Tory nomination down there a number of years ago. The minister is quite prepared to break the laws of this province to set a precedent that decimates planning in this province so he can satisfy his political friends in that area.

Mr. Laughren: That is a very serious charge.

Mr. Swart: It is a pretty serious charge, yes.

This is the minister of Cantrakon. How many in this House remember Cantrakon? This is the minister who broke the Niagara Escarpment laws to approve the building of this resort development on the escarpment for his friends.

3:20 p.m.

It had been opposed and turned down by the Niagara Escarpment Commission. Even the appeals officer had turned it down. When it went to the minister, he approved it. Of course, we had people who noticed that and who raised it in the House. He was so embarrassed he had to back off.

There is Epping Common, something even more recent, where there was a proposal for a development on the slopes on the beautiful Beaver Valley. The minister funded a study contrary to his own regulations. His ministry funded the study in opposition to the plan for the Niagara Escarpment.

It was the public policy of the government -- we have it in writing -- that it would not fund any studies which would oppose the Niagara Escarpment plan. That was up to the independent groups, but he did that and the plan was presented. All kinds of changes were made in the plan. It was one of the most manipulative measures I have ever seen by any minister in this House, but he did it.

This is the minister of the Tory Goring farm, breaking boundaries, breaking a pact, making a shambles of the whole due planning process, and he does not even want any opposition to be heard. He does not even want to give an opportunity to those who might oppose this inclusion. It has already been done, but I say to this minister it may backfire, because even under present legislation there is a two-way street. If he can do that, organizations and individuals can also make application to have other parcels taken out of those urban development boundaries.

That may be the next step in this, or the next step may be to take this matter to the Ombudsman, because the minister himself has flagrantly broken the laws of this province.

I say to him he should have been ashamed of Cantrakon and what he did there. He should have been ashamed of Epping Common and what he did there. Now he should be ashamed of this. He is a disgrace to the government and a disgrace as a minister of this province.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak briefly in winding up the debate on concurrence for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

I would ask the minister to give consideration to some program to assist in the development of the unused lots we have in Ontario, particularly in my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk. We have brought to his attention many times that we have something like 1,100 subdivision lots and lots that have been subdivided in the rural areas which are not being utilized.

I wonder if he would care to continue his program of financial assistance, such as the $5,000 loan. It was a successful program but it could be broadened to include not only the new homes but also first-time homes for people who are renting now. Nothing would stimulate the economy like people owning their own homes and being part of the community rather than having to live in apartments and that type of housing.

I might also like to bring to the attention of the minister that in our area we have 35 homes that belong to the government of Ontario at the old White Oaks facility, and I believe only one or two of those houses are being utilized. They are not new homes but they are good homes. I had a look at them this morning. They are serviced with water and sewers and they are not being utilized. At a time when many people cannot afford or do not have access to a home, it seems such a waste that these homes are sitting there idle and are deteriorating, as any home does when it is not being utilized. It would be useful.

Getting back to the $5,000 program, if there is another one instigated, at the beginning it did not apply in many rural areas; people could not utilize the $5,000 grant to build a farm home because it was not a separate lot. I think that was corrected towards the end of the program, but again many of them were not able to take advantage of it. The farming and agricultural community certainly need that sort of help, just like anyone else in the province, to improve their home and to have the same advantages as people who live in urban areas.

As we look into 1983 and try to get people working, will the minister give special attention to our small municipalities and small builders having access to the program, because they are still the heart of many rural municipalities. The individual builders and individual lumber yards have to be kept alive in order to make our economy and the overall system work.

With those views, perhaps I could close by drawing attention to another area where it would be useful to stimulate employment in the rural areas and that is the downtown development in small municipalities. I know there is a program to beautify the business areas, but many of the downtown areas are getting older and they need modernizing and redevelopment. A program with some leadership from this ministry would certainly be useful to many small communities in Ontario. I will close with those comments.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take

part in this debate. My rebuke to the minister will be mild compared with the barn-burning one of my colleague, the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart). My concern is with legislation that is not strong enough. I am glad the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) is in the environs because it has to do with the stripping of topsoil.

The regional municipality of Sudbury has, in many people's minds, precious little good agricultural land. However, we do have some good class 2 land. As the minister might know, in northern Ontario there are only classes 2, 3, 4 and 5. There is no class I land in all of northern Ontario because of the climatic factor, but we have in Sudbury some of the best class 2 land in northern Ontario.

Last summer, I witnessed what to me was a very sad sight. Some of the best land in the entire basin was stripped of topsoil to be used for a municipal park. I know in this coming year the Sudbury Science Centre, the science centre for northern Ontario, is going to use topsoil as well. I suspect some of it will be from the best farm land in the Sudbury basin.

Here we have a situation where publicly funded institutions are contributing to the stripping of the best farm land in the Sudbury area. When I went to the regional municipality of Sudbury they said, "Yes, we know it is a problem and we are going to pass a bylaw." They got to the second reading of the bylaw and the legal advice from within the region is that they should not pass the bylaw because it could be challenged in the courts and the region would not win. What a lot of nonsense we have here. We have a law that does not have enough teeth to stand up to an appeal.

The region has good intentions and says it wants to protect the topsoil, but it does not have legislation which allows it to do it. I wish the region would proceed with a bylaw with some teeth in it and let it be challenged so that we can then say to the minister, "The legislation is not strong enough."

I would be interested in knowing from the minister whether he really believes the existing legislation is strong enough, because if it is, I would be very pleased to hear it. We could then say to the regional municipality of Sudbury: "Go ahead with the bylaw. Let us stop this topsoil stripping." If the minister feels it is not strong enough, then he should consider making the appropriate amendments so that it is.

3:30 p.m.

I know it is permissive legislation, and I understand why the minister does not want to have all the control here in Queen's Park. The regional municipality should have control over the stripping of its topsoil. I happen to agree with that position. So I do not believe the minister and I think very differently on this matter. It is a question of whether or not the legislation will allow the municipality to enforce its own bylaws, and it would be ludicrous if that were not the case.

Within the region there are many people who have been saying for some time now that we need to be more self-sufficient in the production of food products, and I believe we could do that. We have people in the basin who are interested in doing something like that and are really pushing that whole concept. I believe there is enormous potential in the Sudbury area, more potential now than there has been for 100 years, probably, because the superstack has moved the acid into other areas. It bothers people with their camps in the Muskokas and the Lake Nipissing area, but that is what made it a provincial issue.

Mr. Samis: Timiskaming.

Mr. Laughren: And Timiskaming. As long as pollution was centred on Sudbury people said, "That is a local phenomenon attached to the mining of nickel." Now that it has started affecting all the cottages it has suddenly become acid rain, not pollution, and it became a province-wide, indeed an international, issue.

So we now have the potential to grow better crops in the Sudbury basin. I hope the emission levels will continue to drop, that the Ministry of the Environment will move on a new control order to get them down even further so we can bring back the agricultural land in the Sudbury basin, but if it is stripped, of course we cannot bring it back.

I think it is a very important issue, and my real question to the minister, which I hope he will address in a very serious way, is whether or not he believes the legislation is strong enough. If he does believe that I want to take his response to the region -- I should tell him right now -- and say, "This is the opinion of the minister." Let's have it one way or the other so we can get on with the job of preserving some of the best agricultural land in northern Ontario.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak very briefly on two matters of interest. One is local and one is provincial.

On the local matter I want to raise the problems of family housing in my municipality. The vacancy rate hovers around one per cent, there is an unemployment rate of over 15 per cent and an income level that I think ranks 98th in Canada out of the top 100 cities. I give the minister credit for the fact they have made considerable progress in housing for senior citizens, but I think the priority in our municipality now is to provide rent-geared-to-income family housing.

The waiting list is growing longer. We have a situation where people who are laid off cannot afford private housing and are desperately in need of lower priced, rent-geared-to-income housing. We just do not have the facilities or the opportunities for those low-income families in the municipality of Cornwall.

I know the city council has made a specific proposal for a combined project -- family and senior citizen geared-to-income housing. I believe it has received approval at the lower levels. I believe the problem is that it is tied up with approval from the feds and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for financing. I am not sure where the ultimate responsibility lies or where the delay is. However I just want to impress upon the minister the need for that project to proceed because we desperately need low-income family housing in the municipality of Cornwall.

The second issue I want to raise -- I am not sure if my colleague the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) raised it or not -- relates to this ministry as well as to the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. It deals with the drivers in Ontario who are disabled and have applied for, paid for and received those special licence plates that clearly designate them as disabled.

The problem they are having, especially in the Metro Toronto region, is that beyond the plates they have to get special parking permits. I gather if somebody gets a special parking permit in Scarborough and goes out to Etobicoke or Mississauga he may get ticketed even though he has the parking permit plus his licence plate.

With the exception of one municipality -- I think it was in the paper today: Richmond Hill, if I am not mistaken -- virtually none of them are recognizing the jurisdiction or the validity of the others' parking permits, and it leads one to question the value of the licence plate itself.

I think the program introduced by the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) was a good one, we supported it; but I think the municipalities are now grossly undermining, if not sabotaging, the whole thing by their rather petty, parochial, picayune position. Their jurisdiction is the only one they will recognize; they will recognize absolutely no one else's.

What is the minister doing to try to get the municipalities into line co-operatively so we can avoid all this petty parochialism? What is he doing to ensure a disabled driver in Ontario gets the recognition and the privileges he deserves under the program brought in by the Minister of Transportation and Communications?

I will leave it at those two points and look forward to the minister's reply.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, two or three members commented on my not attending here yesterday at the initial hearing of the concurrences of the ministry. I had the opportunity to be at the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada conference in Vancouver on Monday and Tuesday. Five other provincial ministers from across Canada and myself met with Mr. LeBlanc to discuss things relating to the housing requirements, not only of this province but of the 10 provinces of Canada. It is the only occasion we have had in any kind of collective forum to meet with Mr. LeBlanc and discuss this with him.

I make no apologies to this House for being in that area. If I have the message right, members on both sides of this Legislature have made it clear that as provincial ministers of housing we should take the opportunity to meet with the federal minister. We should be trying to find some solution to what is a problem, as the member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis) has just said, not only in his community but all across Ontario in the provision of housing.

While the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) commented on that, I want to draw to his attention that it was not very sunny in the city of Vancouver the last few days. It has been rather dismal, rainy and overcast. When he says I was on the sunny west coast, there was no sun while I was there and I was not enjoying any degree of warmth.

Looking at some of the issues that have been raised, I think we had a fairly long, drawn-out time in our estimates with an opportunity for members on all sides to inquire as to what our programs are and where we are heading. I will try to respond in a collective way to the comments that have been made because I think various members have gone back and forth over some of the same ground. I will eventually get to the remarks made by the member for Welland-Thorold.

When we relate to what is going on in housing in the province, I was proud to report in Vancouver in the last day or two, when speaking to the HUDAC conference, that our renter-buy program has been extremely successful. We had something better than 16,000 units moved because the provincial and federal governments co-operated, along with the industry.

As I said in my press release, they went so far as to put together an advertising program with three bodies, two governments and the private sector. It was never before tried and never before did it succeed, but this program did great things in helping the industry and helping market conditions.

One of the comments made was there was an inventory of units in the marketplace when we brought the program into being. The Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) and I, and indeed the industry, were well aware of the units that were in place. The fact is, until those units were moved, the individual developer or contractor was not about to start developing any further units.

The member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) knows very well no one wants to be in the construction business today and be carrying an inventory of completed homes. The carrying cost, strictly from a mortgaging point of view, is far too great. We had an opportunity to try to move that inventory, to try to create employment by the development of new homes, and I think we accomplished it.

I look at Metropolitan Toronto just prior to the conclusion of the year 1982. One of the reasons we extended the move-in date for the renter-buy program was because the people in the foundation-pouring business were beyond their capacity. As a result they could not put the number of foundations in place that would allow the construction industry to complete units and have people occupying them by the end of June.

Realizing the difficulties, and more specifically realizing some of the difficulties even the northern communities would experience to a greater extent than in the Metropolitan Toronto and Ottawa areas, we moved the date on to the end of August.

3:40 p.m.

One of the things the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada members were bragging about at the Vancouver national conference was the fact that this program had saved a number of them from a disastrous year in the field of construction. I am pleased the federal and provincial governments have been able to do something that was rewarding not only to industry, but -- and this is probably more important -- to the individual who had the job and the individual who wanted to buy his or her own home. So the program was successful.

I want to mention the Ontario rental construction loan program that we had in the previous year. It also was successful and created a great deal of employment.

Let us look at the overall housing situation. I will separate for the moment the nonprofit, public and private, and the co-op, and speak about the other area in which we as a provincial government have been participating, which is ownership and rental. What does the future hold for it?

There is no doubt there is still a rental shortage in some of our major communities. When I spoke in Vancouver with the minister from Alberta he asked me what our vacancy rate was in the major urban areas of Ontario. I told him our figure was below one per cent. It is interesting that for about 24 months or so, the apartment vacancy rate in Alberta and also in Vancouver was extremely low, just about as low as it is in Toronto. Today they have a vacancy rate in Edmonton and Calgary of about eight per cent.

It is interesting how things change all of a sudden. When I told them we had a one per cent vacancy rate, they said: "My goodness, how lucky you are. We have eight per cent." They are petrified because some of their apartment owners, or investors, are now in a financially disastrous position.

I suppose how green the grass appears depends on where in the field one happens to be standing. While we are not satisfied with the one per cent, if we had an eight per cent vacancy rate in Ontario, realistically, we would be looking at some very difficult if not disastrous economic times for apartment owners. I would, however, like to see the vacancy rate improve somewhat in the metropolitan areas such as Toronto, London, Hamilton and Ottawa, where we have a very low vacancy rate at the moment.

We will continue to work with the federal government to find some kind of co-operative program. I sincerely believe if we are to succeed in answering the problems we have in the field of housing, whether rental accommodation or ownership, it will not be by one government trying to get ahead of the other. The most efficient and effective way of delivering this -- and I think the industry believes this as well -- is through a co-operative program between the federal and provincial governments.

Whether it will be the same program for all provinces, I do not know. Ontario has made it very clear to Mr. LeBlanc, as I did again on Monday night in Vancouver, that we look forward to the opportunity to sit down and make a realistic assessment of the kinds of programs the federal and provincial governments can put together to satisfy the market position in this province.

I doubt if we will hear anything in relationship to a program -- has the member for Etobicoke got pains, or what?

Mr. Philip: Yes. The minister cuts back and expects the federal government to give more and more. That is the only thing that is acceptable to him: to blame everything on the federal government.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I have not blamed a thing on the federal government. Obviously, the member is not listening. I have said very clearly that I am looking forward to the opportunity to work in a co-operative program with the feds.

Mr. Philip: The minister has reduced his portion.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I have not reduced our portion at all. Let me assure this House of that. Let that be known very clearly and distinctly.

Mr. Philip: The minister sure has.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I appreciate that the member for Etobicoke may be having trouble reading figures.

We have participated with the federal government and will continue to do so. I have asked Mr. LeBlanc to go back to Ottawa with some suggestions that were made, some by other ministers across Canada, to try to find a situation that will bring about more real estate and apartment units in various communities. I have no guarantee from the federal government at this time as to what they are going to introduce, but I am told the federal budget could very well have some encouragement for us. That is about as far as they would go at this point.

I will touch on the matter that seems to be bothering the member for Etobicoke. It relates to the area of nonprofit housing, both public and private, and co-op. That is where it is clearly and distinctly the federal government's responsibility, not only in Ontario but in all provinces. The federal government makes the decision on how many units will be built under those programs in Canada. The allocation is given to the minister reporting for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., who in turn assigns a certain number of that allocation to each of the provinces.

We have, individually and collectively, bargained with Mr. LeBlanc, Mr. Ouellet and Mr. Cosgrove over the past number of years to increase that allocation, not only to this province but to the whole housing industry in Canada. They have resisted moving the number up. They play with the number. They move it ahead one year and drop it back the next year.

I reminded Mr. LeBlanc Monday night that the agreement we have, not only in Ontario but in the other nine provinces as well, is that the allocation for that type of construction was to be given to the provinces by December 31, 1982. Here we are in the second week of February, and neither I, Ontario nor any of the other provinces have been assigned a definite allocation in relation to the nonprofit, public and private, and co-ops. I cannot tell members when I am going to get that figure but I can assure them we know very well where the number should be assigned once it does come to us.

There are four principal areas in this province that require help under the nonprofit housing, and that is clearly understood by this minister and this ministry. First of all, we know the Metropolitan Toronto area has a very substantial housing requirement, as does the Ottawa- Carleton area and Peel. There is some demand for it in the London and Hamilton areas as well.

Those are the four or five principal areas we have to concentrate on. The Speaker will realize, coming from the community he does, that we cannot assign the whole allocation to those four or five principal areas and ignore the smaller communities that also have a requirement for rent-geared-to-income units.

This ministry will try to assign them as fairly and realistically and logically as possible. I do not have the capacity to try to expand the 2,200 units, or whatever number the feds happen to give to us, into something much larger. I am not about to suggest to the Treasurer that whatever numbers we require over and above the 2,200 assigned, or whatever the figure happens to be from the federal government, Ontario should go it alone. That is far beyond the financial capacity of this province and would set a very bad precedent.

The federal government would have the opportunity to bow out of any program in the future if we should ever indicate we are prepared to take on that responsibility 100 per cent. There is no sense kidding ourselves. We do not have the financial capacity to take on 100 per cent of that responsibility.

Let me just go back, if I may, to 1978 when the agreement was signed on the nonprofit, public and private, and co-ops with Mr. Ouellet, who then was the federal minister reporting for CMHC. With the writedown of interest they have in that program from market interest rates of two per cent -- the feds pick up that difference -- they figured it was going to cost them between $100 million and $125 million a year.

In the first year of implementation, because of rising interest rates and other miscalculations by the federal government, it cost them $500 million. Just so we do not lose the whole perspective of that situation, that writedown and interest continues for a 35-year period. It is not sunset tomorrow or the year after. It continues on the maximum sum for a 35-year period, and it has been going on since 1978.

If members start to extrapolate what that means in a national investment program for housing, it is rather substantial. The provincial governments -- this province and others -- are also in the pool for a part of the responsibility of the current operating expenses of those units once they are in the marketplace. That is continuing to rise in Ontario rather substantially as well.

Mr. Laughren: I know, but look at the money the minister is putting into make-work projects that are not doing very much.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: If the member wants to talk about make-work projects, the Ontario rental construction loan program and the Ontario renter-buy program are, indeed, part of the make-work programs. One cannot discount their importance. One can see where the renter-buy program had influence and impact in a multitude of communities across this province, not only in the major areas but right across the province. I supplied each member with a complete list of the areas in which the renter-buy program had an effect.

I have listened to people tell us about our responsibility for public housing and that we have done little or nothing since 1976. I want to correct some of the misunderstandings some people would like to leave in the mind of the public. In 1976, as the taxpayers of this province, we had 71,500 units under Ontario ownership.

3:50 p.m.

At the end of 1982, the figure under our ownership as taxpayers and citizens of Ontario was 84,366. Indeed, through our rent supplement program, the rent-geared-to-income program and the various other programs we have had where we dealt with the private sector in renting some of its units, that figure had gone up to 115,346 units. That is the number we have in this province today under the auspices of the federal and provincial governments, supporting them through the shortfall in financing.

I recognize none of the provinces could do this alone. It requires federal participation. It has done so over the last number of years and without any doubt will continue to do so for the next number of years. We have moved from 1976 when the figure was 87,468 units for ownership, rent-geared-to-income, nonprofits, co-ops and rent supplements in the private sector. On December 1, 1982, that figure was 115,346 units, a rather substantial increase in a period of five or six years.

The other figure we should look at is both the federal and provincial governments in 1976 were covering costs of $219 million in the shortfall. At the end of last year, December 31, the shortfall was $309 million shared on a 50-50 basis with the federal and provincial governments. That is one area in which we will continue to press the federal government for some assistance because we know the responsibility we have and the requirement to provide housing is in the field of nonprofits by municipalities.

I am not aware of the proposal the member for Cornwall speaks of. Obviously it is in the mill and is likely being worked on both from a family and senior citizens' point of view. He is right that they have a maximum unit price they must meet. There must also be an allocation from the federal government to the provincial government that can accommodate it. Finally, they must have the appropriate zoning, planning and so on to accommodate it in their community.

Cornwall is one of the areas I spoke of just a moment ago that has to be considered. We cannot look exclusively at Toronto, Ottawa, London, Windsor, Hamilton and Thunder Bay. There are other communities in this province that require some support in the nonprofit housing program, the same as these other metropolitan areas.

Obviously, there was no minister attending the conference who was not concerned with how we are going to meet the social housing requirement. I reminded Mr. LeBlanc it is fine to say that the maximum is 25,000 units for Canada or 22,000 units for Canada, whatever the figure is he and Mr. Lalonde came up with, but I suggested strongly to him we have a whole different social position today than we had in 1978. I said it was not very rewarding for provinces to hear the federal minister say, "That is the maximum we can provide."

I drew to his attention that we have a welfare problem that is higher than we experienced in 1978. As a result, the need and the pressures in looking for rent supplement units is greater today than it was at that time. The provinces and municipalities alone cannot find the answer. I think it will take a co-operative program to try to bring more into the system.

I made one point to him I would like to raise here today for a moment. The Canada rental supply program was the federal program introduced a year ago for which Mr. Cosgrove, the minister of the day, said he would deliver 10,000 new rental units in Ontario under this program. They did not deliver 10,000 or even much more than a third of that.

I indicated to the minister he should offer some encouragement to the provinces to get back into a program like we had, the Ontario rental construction loan program. I said any units we use in those buildings that we could use under rent supplement should not he taken out of the allocation the province has assigned for its nonprofit and rent supplement units. It should be a bonus because the cost of developing under the Ontario rental construction loan program in 1981 was considerably less per unit to the federal government than under the nonprofit or some of the other schemes that we have in existence.

It is one of the areas he has gone back to have a careful look at. He wants to see whether there cannot be some encouragement offered to not only this province but other provinces to initiate their own type of rental construction loan program.

Let me speak to one of the subjects raised by the member for Etobicoke -- I believe it was also raised by the member for Cornwall -- relating to the announcement by the Minister of Transportation and Communications about the new plates for the disabled and its identification.

The member for Cornwall is quite right -- there happens to be some differences of opinion. I am not sure whether in the discussion we have had and will have with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario we will be able to find some common denominator for all municipalities to accept a universal bylaw that will allow for recognition of a disabled plate and sticker, but if the member saw the release issued by the Minister of Transportation and Communications on January 24, 1983, he will see the minister tried to define or refine what he had said previously because there seemed to be some difficulties or some misunderstanding.

It said that "Transportation and Communications Minister James Snow today provided some clarification to a confusing situation arising from the announced availability of new licence plates for the disabled on February 1.

"'While these new plates will provide a means of identification for the vehicles being operated by, or carrying physically disabled persons,' he pointed out, 'they will not automatically entitle these drivers to special parking privileges.'"

Mr. Boudria: They should.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: No one is arguing that point. The point he is making is that he has to get some co-operation, as the member for Cornwall has said, from the various municipalities.

"A number of municipalities have bylaws covering these parking privileges and they require a permit which must be prominently displayed when vehicles are using these designated spots.

"'Thus,' Snow noted, 'the plates, to be effective, must be backed up by a permit from the local municipality. The eligibility requirements for these special parking permits are set by the individual municipalities and may vary.

"'As yet,' he continued, 'there are no reciprocal agreements among municipalities which means that permits issued for one area may not be accepted in other municipalities.

"'We are working on this problem,' he concluded, 'and it is sincerely hoped that, in the near future, some agreement can be reached to enable these vehicles to have access to special designated parking spots anywhere in the province.'"

So it is one of the challenges this ministry will have in trying to be the mediator between the Ministry of Transportation and Communications and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. There again, AMO will also have the responsibility in trying to convince the various municipalities across this province, trying to be the mediator between the Ministry of Transportation and Communications and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. There again, AMO will also have the responsibility in trying to convince the various municipalities across this province that they should enact a bylaw of a universal type that would accommodate the disabled.

I can only say to members that we will continue to work on it. The spirit of co-operation --

Mr. Swart: We could use a policy statement from your ministry under the Planning Act.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: We are not about to get into that. There are certain things the member would say that are responsibilities of municipalities and their freedom to make choices for themselves without them being dictated by Queen's Park.

Mr. Philip: Where is the legislation you said you would bring in?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: There is a possibility, but I am not committing myself to it at this point. We would like to find some degree of co-operation. That is what the member's party preaches, that the municipality has the right, the autonomy -- that great word "autonomy."

Mr. Philip: One minister is saying you are bringing in a bill and another is saying you aren't. What incompetence. Snow says you are bringing in legislation.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: No, that is not what I said. The member should read Hansard tomorrow so he will understand it.

Mr. Philip: I will get the Hansard and read it into the record.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Good.

4 p.m.

There is one last comment I will make and then I will get into one or two things on the planning situation that one of the members raised. The grant formula to municipalities was raised by one or two of the members in their remarks. Indeed, the grant formula was announced this year with a 4.3 per cent increase. It has had rather wide acceptance in this province.

I compliment the municipalities for realizing, just as well as this government, that there is not an endless supply of money coming from the taxpayers in the economic situation we are experiencing in Ontario, Canada and North America. While we would have liked to have had a higher factor than 4.3, it is not possible.

I accept some of the comments made by various members relating to the grant formula. I said a year ago to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario that it would be my desire to try to find a way to make the transfer payments and the formula more understandable to all, including the individual taxpayer.

There is no doubt the six grants we have now and the formula for calculating them could confuse most people, if not all. There are very few people who can follow from A to Z and understand all the things that have been taken into each community's calculation. It is unfair for that type of formula to continue to exist. We should endeavour, in co-operation with AMO, to find some solution to the problem.

We are in the process now of meeting with AMO and its financial committee to review with them a discussion paper that has been drawn together by the ministry. We are trying to extract from them some views, ideas and suggestions as to how we might make the formula or the process of transfer payments better understood and more equitable to all. We want a formula that would give a degree of consistency so that municipalities would have a fair idea from year to year what they could expect in the way of transfers from this government.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I rise to correct the record for the minister. He just indicated the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) did not indicate that changes would be needed by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I refer him to page 5277 of Hansard and the November 19 statement by the Minister of Transportation and Communications, where he said, "However, changes are needed in Ontario's municipal acts so that communities also can recognize the provincially issued plates."

If that is not a statement that legislation is needed by that ministry, I do not know what is. I suggest the minister may want to change his remarks and correct himself.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I said that if I had to bring in an amendment, I would do so; I was not about to do it at this time. I said very clearly that I am going to meet with AMO and try to find some understandable position by the municipalities. I do not want to take the attitude: "We will just bring it in. Whether you like it or not, here it is."

Mr. Philip: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The record will clearly show the minister stated that the Minister of Transportation and Communications did not say that legislation under this minister was needed. I have shown that on November 19 that was precisely what the Minister of Transportation and Communications did say. I cannot be responsible for the fact that one minister who is supposed to be co-operating with another minister does not seem to know what the other is doing. That is their incompetence, not mine. He should withdraw his remark.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I will not withdraw my remarks. I said the Minister of Transportation and Communications indicated there would be requirements. I said, "If it has to be it will, but I am not about to bring it in right now." I will do my negotiations and see what I can achieve. If it comes to the point where there has to be legislation, I suppose that is what there will be.

Mr. Philip: It would be nice if you decided on that before introducing the plates.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The Minister of Transportation and Communications is saying that there should be universality of the use of the plates by every municipality. That is correct.

Mr. Philip: What are they for otherwise?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: There are municipalities now, and the member knows it, that have already accepted bylaws and have provisions made. What the member is saying is that if we want to make it universal, it will take an amendment to the act. That is correct.

Mr. Philip: So he introduces his plates without first consulting the municipalities.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: No.

Mr. Philip: Of course; that is why Etobicoke and Scarborough censured him.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Villeneuve): I ask the member for Etobicoke to let the minister speak, please.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I know exactly what the member for Etobicoke would like us to admit, that we should just come in with compulsory legislation and forget about any discussion because it is not worthy of discussion. I take the other attitude. I will discuss the problem with AMO and try to find some reasonable solution.

Mr. Philip: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I did not indicate that. If the minister had been here last night or if he had even read the record correctly, he would have seen that I suggested the boroughs of Etobicoke and Scarborough have expressed resentment that the minister has brought in the plates without first consulting them. I suggested to him that I hoped this minister and the Minister of Transportation and Communications would soon consult with these and other municipalities so that the people who are being played with like footballs -- the disabled -- would not have to wait while one level of government fights with another.

If this minister and the Minister of Transportation and Communications had any kind of consultative process, they would have gone first to the municipalities as well as to the disabled, and we would not have had the kind of mess and confusion we are now experiencing.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I will not pursue it, Mr. Speaker, it is not going to get us any further; but I suggest that my friend get a copy of the December I letter to the Minister of Transportation and Communications from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario as to their position in his correspondence with them.

I will deal in my final remarks with the member from Welland-Thorold, the barnstorming session he had last night and again today, and his comments about a number of things relating to planning and so on.

I am not going to waste a great deal of time on it, but he drags in the Cantrakon Convention Centre. I made a decision on Cantrakon and I stood by it.

Mr. Swart: Yes. You stood with your development friends.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Yes, that is fine. We made a decision on Epping Common, and it is the very member who is now yelling about sending something to the Ontario Municipal Board who was opposed to my sending it back to the OMB. He wanted me to make a decision on it.

Mr. Swart: That has nothing to do with the OMB.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Did I interfere with the member when he was speaking? I paid him the courtesy of not saying a word.

We now deal with Niagara-on-the-Lake and the request for an official plan amendment. I am fully aware of the fact there were long, drawn-out hearings at the time the official plan of that area came forward and that the Preservation of Agricultural Land Society played a rather interesting part, supported by public funds to present their case. I understand and read that the OMB complimented PALS for their rather explicit and detailed presentation. No one was going to take that away from them.

Indeed, I think this government has encouraged and furnished a lot of opportunity for public participation in hearings, whether it be the OMB or in various Niagara Escarpment hearings and so on, and has opened the doors for the public to be heard and to express their views, their concerns and their desires.

But let us not forget that municipalities have councils that are elected, and they have some right to speak on behalf of a very substantial group of people known as taxpayers. Indeed, there is also a regional council, and the member's regional council is a formation where people are elected directly to it.

The issue the member for Welland-Thorold speaks of is one that had acceptance by both the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake and the regional municipality of Niagara. Indeed, not only did that happen but also, as I said to him in my letter, the letter I sent to Mrs. Gracia Janes of the Preservation of Agricultural Land Society clearly indicated --

Mr. Swart: What about the one you never replied to?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It is dated December 22, 1982. When the member goes through it, he will see there are seven points I raised in defence of the position I took. Clearly, difference of opinion is what makes the world continue to go around, I hope the member for Welland-Thorold will appreciate.

Mr. Swart: Yes. That's why I wanted to get the OMB to hear both that and other issues.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Good. The letter of December 22, 1982, "Re: Proposed amendment number 37 to the Niagara-on-the-Lake official plan and the corresponding designation in the Niagara region official plan," says:

"After careful consideration of your objection to the above-noted matters, I have decided to deny your request for referral on the grounds that it is privileged, based on the following reasons:

"1. The redesignations are supported by the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake and the regional municipality of Niagara."

Mr. Swart: Nothing ever gets to you unless it is new. That's not new; new bylaws have to be passed in the municipality before they get to you.

The Acting Speaker: Will the member for Welland-Thorold give the minister an opportunity to speak?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I would have thought the member with his years of experience would know there are other ways of getting to the minister with a request for an OMB hearing besides through the municipality or the region. He knows that very well. I do not have to explain the whole thing to him.

"2. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food did not object to the redesignation.

"3. The agricultural viability and capability of the site is questionable, since much of the western portion was stripped of topsoil and is currently used for a gravel horse-training track, and the eastern portion apparently has some drainage problems."

Mr. Swart: Much of it is not.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Let me suggest to the member that if he would just --

Mr. Swart: I know it.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I am not suggesting that I have been down and covered every hectare of the land of which the member speaks, but we have the very competent and capable Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch), who happens to come from that jurisdiction. We also have the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes), who happens to come from that area. They know very well what the situation happens to be on that 26 hectares.

4:10 p.m.

Mr. Stokes: The member for Balls Falls would not agree with you on that.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Is that Balls Falls or bald eagles or where?

Mr. Swart: What a dividing line: a road.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: "

(4) The site is isolated from the major areas of the better agriculture in the area to the north and east by Queenston Road residential development and the Six Mile Creek valley.

"

(5) The proposal can be seen as the rounding out of the existing industrial area, with Queenston Road and the Six Mile Creek providing a buffer to adjacent agricultural areas.

"

(7) The site represents a reduction in the size of the earlier expansion proposed as part of the original secondary plan in official plan amendment number 32."

We spent a great deal of time when the request came forward and we reviewed it with a number of people. I say this in sincerity to the member. It says here about the owner, and I gather this is from today's news release:

"Swart said the majority of the land is owned by Fred Goring, reeve of Niagara township for several years and the Lord Mayor of Niagara-on-the-Lake from the time the town was created in 1969 to 1972. Goring also ran for the federal Progressive Conservative nomination for Lincoln riding in 1968."

It goes on to try to say that Goring owns the land. I did not go to the registry office to check it out, but I did speak to some people in the area of municipal responsibility down there and my understanding is that Mr. Goring is not the single owner of the land. The land is owned by Mr. Goring and other people.

I would not know Mr. Goring from a bale of hay, and I would not have known his political background other than what I read here, which was that when the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) raised the question last night, he said Mr. Goring was a Tory. I see it here in the Hansard of last night.

Mr. Haggerty: He is a good man, though.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: He might be a good man. I suggest that Mr. Goring and his fellow land owners in that area, along with the municipality and the region, agree that because of the conditions of the present land, which does not have the capability of growing plums or prunes or anything else, because it is a cinder track for racing and the topsoil has been taken off --

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I read into the record a letter from Mr. Gillespie which says, of course, it is good land for growing plums --

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): That is not a point of order.

Mr. Swart: It needed correction anyway.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It is not a point of order; it is a point. The member put his point that Mr. Gillespie had a report. At this point I am not sure whether Mr. Gillespie's report specifically deals with only the 26 hectares of land or whether it deals with something in a much more vast and general way. It likely deals with something in a much more general way for which we accept the fact that the land down there -- not just 26 hectares, but a very substantial portion of land down there -- obviously does have a very high capability to produce the tender fruits that are required in this province and in this country.

Mr. Swart: That report refers only to that parcel.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I would find it difficult other than talking about atmospheric conditions and so when there is no topsoil --

Mr. Swart: We are talking about the OMB.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The topsoil has been taken off. It is now a cinder training track and it is pretty difficult to think that even hay or straw could be grown on it, let alone anything else that comes from the byproduct of wheat.

I want to make it very clear that I made this decision. It is my responsibility, as the minister reporting for the Planning Act. Let me correct the member for Welland-Thorold. I am not compelled to send it to the Ontario Municipal Board. There are certain things that say the minister can under certain conditions make a final decision.

It might be shocking to the member to know that anybody in a ministerial capacity has the right to make a final decision and that it should not go through another group of hoops to keep some lawyers who would like to continue to proceed through the various court systems on the payroll --

Mr. Treleaven: Be careful.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: If I hurt the legal profession, I am sorry, but we continue to produce enough legislation to give them a full-time pension plan.

We made the decision very carefully and completely and, I believe, on the advice of the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake.

Mr. Swart: Name the precedents where it has been done before.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to listen to the member for Welland-Thorold. He wants to be very specific. He wants to zero in on an association I might have taken this attitude towards. We do not take it as a blanket situation. There are municipalities that I have said were frivolous. We have other groups that we have said are frivolous. But not --

The Acting Speaker: Ignore the dialogue back and forth. The member for Welland-Thorold has made his presentation, and now the minister is concluding his wrap-up.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: He thinks he is back at the estimates committee downstairs where there is an opportunity to banter back and forth.

The Acting Speaker: I ask the minister not to be provocative.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I appreciate your requirement to get things carried on as quickly as possible, Mr. Speaker. I still have a few minutes, and I will not try to use them all.

The decision made, I believe, is the right decision.

Mr. Stokes: This is a concurrence debate. They are trying to reach a consensus.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: If the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) can get a consensus from the member for Welland-Thorold on any issue, he will be doing an outstanding job on behalf of his leader.

Mr. Stokes: I have done that.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: With difficulty.

The Acting Speaker: Speaking to the concurrence.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The decision I have made is one that I believe is right. It is on behalf of the municipality, the region, the land owners, on the advice of people in the political system in this Legislature and others and, indeed, on the advice of my own chief planner, my assistant deputy minister, Mr. Farrow, whom I think has a tremendous amount of respect from people on all sides of this House.

Mr. Swart: Oho.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The member for Welland-Thorold might say, "Oho." Let me tell him, there are a number of people in his party who have a great respect for Mr. Farrow's ability to understand, interpret and help them out in what the Planning Act means in relation to things. They take his advice on most, if not all, occasions.

When it does not suit the member for Welland-Thorold he is great at throwing a few daggers. I will take Mr. Farrow's advice over that of the member for Welland-Thorold any day in relation to planning and a great number of other issues I have to deal with. I give him that advice today.

Let me conclude, because I think the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) asked me a question on the issue of land stripping.

Mr. Swart: Name the cases.

Mr. Laughren: Topsoil stripping.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That is correct -- good topsoil stripping.

I am not aware of the difficulty he spoke of in the region of Sudbury. If the member has some correspondence or some background material, I will be pleased to look at it. I have not had expressed to me, before today, that the legislation the member has indicated does not have the teeth -- a municipal bylaw with the backup of the legislation -- to be carried forward into a court of law. If the member wants to submit that information to me, I will be glad to have our people review it and see exactly how his legal counsel came to that conclusion.

I suppose one would have to look and see exactly what it is the municipality wants to do and to what extent. Not knowing that, of course, it is difficult to try to give a personal or positive decision on that site. I invite the member to send to me whatever information he has. I will be glad to have Mr. Farrow and others do a further investigation to see how we can, if necessary, strengthen the legislation. It is my desire, as well as the member's, to prevent the stripping of topsoil on some of the best agricultural lands across Ontario.

Just to make the member for Welland-Thorold feel a little more comfortable, if that is possible -- I am not sure it ever is possible the way he keeps jumping out of his seat; I am afraid it must be a hard seat -- the fact is, if we had had the stripping legislation some years ago, the problem we are facing with the 26 hectares might not have come into being.

Resolution concurred in.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Speaker, before moving the final resolution, if I can have your indulgence to raise --

The Acting Speaker: No. I am sorry; the resolution has now been passed. Is this a point of order? What is the member's point?

Mr. Lupusella: I stood up before the resolution was passed.

The Acting Speaker: No. I did not see the member standing when I called for the question. What is the member's point?

Mr. Lupusella: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: I am asking if this is a point of order.

Mr. Lupusella: No.

The Acting Speaker: Then I am not allowing the member to have the floor. That debate is finished. Concurrence for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has been completed.

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

Mr. Spensieri: Mr. Speaker, concurrence in supply having been moved, I am happy to be able to address the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) about some of our concerns from this side of the House which have arisen both from the estimates, which were concluded not too long ago, and from issues of the moment.

The Solicitor General will appreciate that the points on which I intend to dialogue with him are in no particular order of priority or importance.

4:20 p.m.

The first item is something of a rather parochial nature. However, I am comforted by the advice of the Premier (Mr. Davis) that one need not fear being too pa