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

June 9, 1983

32nd Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

ANNUAL REPORT, LEGISLATIVE LIBRARY

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

SAFE DRINKING WATER

BLUEPRINT FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT

JOB CREATION PROGRAM

COMMISSION APPOINTMENT

ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT CORP. PRINTOUTS

HEALTH FACILITIES SPECIAL ORDERS BILL

ONTARIO ELECTORAL DISTRICTS

ORAL QUESTIONS

REGULATION OF TRUST COMPANIES

DEVELOPMENTALLY HANDICAPPED PEOPLE

HEALTH FACILITIES SPECIAL ORDERS BILL

BLUEPRINT FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT

SAFE DRINKING WATER

ELMER THE SAFETY ELEPHANT

WHITE FARM EQUIPMENT CANADA LTD.

PROVINCIAL LOTTERIES

VISITORS

INSPECTION OF NURSING HOMES

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HEALTH FACILITIES SPECIAL ORDERS ACT

PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION AMENDMENT ACT

WORKERS' COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT

FRONTIER COLLEGE ACT

AVIAN EMBLEM ACT

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT

THIRD READINGS (CONCLUDED)

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY CONVERSION PROGRAM

HUMAN TISSUE GIFT AMENDMENT ACT

ROYAL ASSENT

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY CONVERSION PROGRAM

HUMAN TISSUE GIFT AMENDMENT ACT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

ANNUAL REPORT, LEGISLATIVE LIBRARY

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the annual report of the director of the legislative library research and information services for 1982-83.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

SAFE DRINKING WATER

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I think the copies are being distributed at the moment.

I would like to inform the honourable members of certain initiatives to bring the best available technology to Ontario residents in the provision of clean and safe drinking water supplies and, in particular, action in the protecting of water quality in the Niagara River.

As members will be aware, my ministry accelerated its efforts in the development of new standards for hazardous contaminants some months ago. Since then we have put in place an expanded program of water testing aimed at providing an improved data base on chemical contaminants, their whereabouts and their possible origins. We have also purchased and installed a new mass spectrometer, high-resolution equipment that is designed to upgrade significantly our ability to detect chemical contaminants in trace quantities.

These moves will put Ontario ahead of most other jurisdictions in the world, and it is our intention to move progressively towards a situation where we can routinely monitor and test our drinking water for trace chemical contaminants. But that will not happen overnight. It will be very expensive and will take several years to achieve, but it will ensure that we are and continue to be in the forefront of worldwide efforts to protect people from the health hazards of toxic chemicals.

In order to advance this program of hazardous contaminants control and abatement, some time ago I instructed my staff to prepare to undertake a program of extensive technical and scientific research into the most effective, modern means of removing potential chemical contamination from drinking water.

There are a number of aspects to this program. First of all, it is an area in which we have for many years shared a joint interest and responsibility with the federal Department of National Health and Welfare. We have cooperated in scientific research, in the setting of drinking water objectives and in the exchange of information. I have invited the participation of both National Health and Welfare and Environment Canada in this Ontario project.

Second, to ensure the best scientific and technological approach to the program design, technical and scientific staff from my ministry and from the federal Department of National Health and Welfare have established at Ontario's initiative a permanent scientific working group, which will supervise the implementation of this new research endeavour.

Third, I would like to expand on the nature of the new initiative. It adds a new dimension to an integrated program of research that has been under way for some time. Members will be aware of the growing public interest in various alternatives and supplements to the existing technologies for the treatment of drinking water. In the past three years we have undertaken research in this area to help us determine the most promising and cost-effective of these technologies.

In 1979, we initiated one of the most comprehensive studies of the ozonation of drinking water ever undertaken in Canada. Results of that study are designed to tell us how ozone treatment will assist in decreasing the production of chlorinated organics in the chlorination process. Two pilot-scale projects were conducted at Lindsay and Brantford. I shall be tabling the results of that research study soon.

Over the past two years we have also collaborated with the federal Department of National Health and Welfare, in a study sponsored by it, to test the use of various coagulants in the removal of trihalomethane precursors from drinking water. That study is now completed; as soon as technical evaluation has been prepared by the two levels of government, I shall table these results in the House.

Our latest program, which I am proposing to undertake immediately, will extend these two research efforts to examine additional methods for the abatement of chemical contaminations in drinking water. These methods include the use of activated carbon absorption and the optimization of treatment plant operations. This program will cost about $1 million over a three-year period. I will be announcing the location of this program very shortly.

While many other drinking water plants around the world have used activated carbon absorption to remove odours, unpleasant tastes and colour problems, Ontario's research will focus specifically on the effectiveness and cost of carbon filters in dealing with trace contaminants at very low levels of detection, fractions of a part per trillion. Before we and local municipalities make any decisions regarding their use, we must be absolutely sure of their reliability. We also need a clear confirmation of the capital and operating costs that these technologies require.

I have stressed this is an area for joint federal-provincial co-operation. In fact, my ministry informed the federal government of our plans and asked for its assistance almost two weeks ago. Because of a high federal interest in this critical area, I have high hopes of its support, financial or otherwise, in this endeavour.

On the subject of protecting the water quality of the Niagara River, honourable members will recall that on September 27, 1982, I announced to the Legislature that I had instructed my staff to prepare a submission to the United States district court in western New York, requesting intervener status in the negotiations between the United States Environmental Protection Agency and Hooker Chemicals and Plastics Corp. concerning the S-area landfill site.

My announcement at that time caused great consternation on the part of the federal government, which appeared not to understand that the government of Ontario believes it has a duty to represent the interests of the people of this province whenever and wherever it is necessary to do so. This was also a departure from External Affairs' policy of tacit support, given the number of interventions made by my ministry in the past concerning long-range transport of air pollutants.

In correspondence with the Honourable Allan MacEachen, Secretary of State for External Affairs, and the Honourable John Roberts, Minister of the Environment for Canada, I agreed to accede to their plea to defer intervention and to enter into a process of diplomacy and discussion. This, they believed, would result in an interagency agreement giving Ontario full participation in the proceedings without the need to resort to the courts. After some considerable delay, I subsequently met with both ministers to urge the acceleration of negotiations with the United States.

At the same time, and throughout, I strongly maintained my option of filing our application for intervener status should the proceedings prove unsatisfactory. It is now nearly nine months later, and despite numerous meetings and considerable efforts on the part of my ministry, we are still not satisfied that the proposals made to us constitute our full participation in the negotiations in a manner that would adequately safeguard Ontario's interests.

Furthermore, on May 13 of this year, the United States Environmental Protection Agency announced a series of policy and administrative changes in its hazardous waste programs, in an attempt to accelerate site cleanups; and on May 16, the United States government decided to proceed with remedial investigations and feasibility studies with respect to the S-area under the auspices of the Superfund. In other words, negotiations with Hooker on that landfill site are at an end.

Given this change in circumstances, I wish today to announce the action my ministry will be taking to ensure its participation in matters affecting this particular site. The Niagara River improvement team will communicate with those in charge of the Superfund activities at the senior technical level, to ensure we have an opportunity to provide input as the investigations and studies proceed. Preliminary indications are that such technical input will be welcomed.

2:10 p.m.

Since the final remedial action will be likely to be the subject of court proceedings, I have instructed my staff to file our application for intervener status immediately and thus seek a voice in the final litigation, which is likely to proceed this fall. No doubt the federal government will once again raise its voice in protest, but I must remind it that we can no longer afford to spend time on the unproductive route it seems to prefer, nor can the interests of the Ontario people be protected by well-publicized site visits on the part of the federal Minister of the Environment.

The time has come, despite federal misgivings, for determined action, and I will keep the Legislature fully advised of the progress of our application in the United States courts.

I have a further statement, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: You can appreciate that my leader has given me the statement just made by the minister. How many pages are there in the statement? It just happens to be short a few pages. I think it is pretty significant and important.

Mr. Speaker: I think the minister will see to it that you get a proper copy. You are missing page 10, apparently.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am sorry for that, Mr. Speaker. I will certainly see to it that the honourable member gets a complete copy.

Mr. Nixon: You need a lot more staff.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Well, we are a lean and tough ministry, but we do not very often slip up on things like that.

Mr. Speaker: Now, having regard for the time, the Minister of the Environment.

BLUEPRINT FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, last November I advised the honourable members and the people of Ontario that my staff and I were preparing a Blueprint for Waste Management, a plan for the development of a comprehensive waste management system to serve Ontario throughout the 1980s and into the next 20 years.

My intent was to initiate a comprehensive review of all present waste management practices, policies and controls, including legislation, to provide efficient measures that will ensure the protection of public health and the Ontario environment. I invited comment and submissions from all interests and individuals in the province for incorporation in our draft blueprint. We have reviewed those first submissions and drafted a blueprint, which is now ready for public review and further comment and refinement.

This document has been prepared in accordance with the four major principles I outlined in November: as many recoverable and usable material resources must be reclaimed from our garbage as possible; those who are responsible for producing, handling and disposing of wastes must be accountable for the way they execute their responsibilities; as responsible parties we must be informed on the issues and take

part in the decisions that must be made to resolve them; and finally, our disposal practices must attempt to ensure that no waste ever becomes a threat to either our environment or our wellbeing.

On Monday morning, June 13, I will be meeting my commitment to introduce the blueprint in detail at the 30th annual Industrial Waste Conference sponsored by the Ministry of the Environment. With my ministry's blueprint team I will be setting out our proposals and releasing our discussion document for public review. I have made arrangements for copies of the blueprint and of my own presentation to be distributed to the members' mailboxes on Monday.

Over the next few months, my staff and I will be talking and listening to as many groups and interests across Ontario as possible. I plan to launch an active campaign to get people involved in the waste management decisions that must be made to complete the blueprint. In a series of public meetings, the ministry's team will receive and hear further submissions in detail. I will welcome any comments and suggestions that the honourable members may contribute to this process and to the formulation of a final blueprint for an efficient and comprehensive system of waste management in this province.

By year-end, when the next stage of public review is completed and I have reviewed policy options with cabinet, I expect to be able to outline for the members our action program to implement the comprehensive plan.

In conclusion, I would like to appeal to groups and individuals, municipalities, businesses and industry -- all sectors of Ontario society -- to review the forthcoming document and contribute to the development of this plan, each in his own way and with his own ideas.

JOB CREATION PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief, but important, statement to make today.

I would like to outline to the members the job creation program that my ministry has developed for the 1983-84 municipal roads projects.

In total, the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, through the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program, will spend an additional $24 million to create jobs in the municipal roads, King's highways and provincial transit areas. Today I would like to report on the distribution of $17 million which is being made available to Ontario municipalities.

Along with the local government contribution of approximately $10 million, that sum should result in the creation of some 1,700 jobs. Such funds will allow regions, counties, cities, towns, villages, boroughs and townships from one end of Ontario to the other, to go ahead with over 256 much-needed projects, ranging from storm sewer and garage construction to bridge repair and a great many bridge replacements, while creating jobs for local citizens.

I have appended a complete listing of these projects to copies of this statement and I trust that almost every member will find a project of interest and importance to his or her riding. These statements will be presented later this afternoon. Within the next day or so, I will also be sending to each member of the House a letter advising him or her of the supplementary allocations to municipalities in their ridings along with a more detailed list of the accelerated work projects.

COMMISSION APPOINTMENT

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, with your permission I would like to announce the appointment of Donald J. M. Brown, QC, to head a commission of inquiry into the issue of wage protection in this province.

The problem of the protection of workers' wages when employers become either bankrupt or insolvent is a particularly troubling one at this time. The unprecedented number of bankruptcies and insolvencies in recent months has underscored this.

At present, the federal Bankruptcy Act governs the priority accorded to various claims on an employer's assets when bankruptcy is declared, and wage claims now are honoured only after the claims of all secured creditors, such as banks, are fulfilled. The result is that employees in this province generally recover only a fraction of their wages owing when an employer becomes bankrupt.

The complexity of this issue is considerable. While the federal government has explicit jurisdiction over bankruptcies and insolvencies, the province has constitutional authority to legislate over property and civil rights. Although authority is mixed, several court decisions to date have upheld provincial authority to affect the distribution of claims in certain circumstances.

The importance of an examination of the issue by the province is increased by the fact that the federal government has introduced five bills in the past eight years to amend its Bankruptcy Act, which has remained unchanged since 1949.

Although there has been some indication of willingness on the part of the federal government to upgrade the protection offered employees in bankruptcy situations, this intention has not yet resulted in concrete amendments. It is hoped that Mr. Brown's study will be of assistance in effecting action at the national level. We are extremely fortunate that he has agreed to undertake this inquiry.

Mr. Brown is a partner in the law firm of Blake, Cassels and Graydon in Toronto and has taught at both Osgoode Hall and the University of Toronto law schools. He has extensive experience in the field of labour relations and administrative law and has published numerous articles in these areas. In 1982 he was named chairman of the administrative law

section of the Canadian Bar Association.

In this inquiry, Mr. Brown will canvass possible remedies within the jurisdiction of the province to secure the payment of wages and benefits in the event of an employer's bankruptcy or insolvency. In so doing, he will consult with employers, organized labour, financial institutions, the federal and provincial governments and other interested parties. It is expected that he will report on these topics before the end of this calendar year.

Mr. Brown is in the members' gallery and will be available in the lobby following question period today to speak to any member of the Legislature or to the media.

2:20 p.m.

ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT CORP. PRINTOUTS

Mr. Sargent: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Knowing your dedication to total fairness for the small guy and for the minority groups in the House, I bring this point to you.

In going through the estimates of the Ontario Development Corp., I have been given a printout of all the loans since its inception. Fifty copies of the printouts were to be delivered to me by Monday. I was told today they cannot afford to print out 50 printouts. This matter involves $671 million of hanky-panky we are trying to look at. I do not see why they cannot afford the sum of $1,000 to give me these printouts. I know you will order them to give me the printouts, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I do not have that authority, as you well know. However, I would suggest you place your question to the appropriate person at the appropriate time.

Mr. Sargent: I will do it right now.

Mr. Speaker: No. Just resume your seat, please. Will the member for Grey-Bruce please resume his seat?

HEALTH FACILITIES SPECIAL ORDERS BILL

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, as members are aware, the vast majority of health services in Ontario are provided by dedicated professionals with the highest standards of integrity and commitment. For this reason we have what I believe is the finest health care system in the world and one that all of us can rely upon with complete confidence.

Of course, the provision of health care is a very large undertaking, and because of its size, includes a mix of public, private and nonprofit institutions and organizations plus individual professionals offering a wide number of services to the public. Each of the service areas in our health care system is governed by regulatory legislation which establishes the standards and criteria under which licences are granted to health care or health-related facilities and providers to which their operations and activities must conform in the public interest.

Unfortunately, however, deficiencies and abuses do occur from time to time in both public and private services, and when they are identified, the public expects the Ministry of Health to take swift and appropriate action to correct any problem that could place the care and safety of patients or communities in jeopardy. In the case of the public facilities, we already have authority to take direct action, but this power does not apply to privately owned services. Let me give the House some examples of this:

Through our inspections and audits in the past few years we have found a few ambulance firms misrepresenting the amount of service and staff they were providing. They claimed they had the required ambulances and staff on duty when they did not. We have been able to prosecute where obvious fraud is involved and have been able to pursue recovery of the moneys owed to us, but we have not been able to intervene directly in the operation to ensure that these fraudulent operators do not continue periodically to place the emergency services of their communities in jeopardy for personal gain.

Likewise, we have been able to prosecute operators of private laboratories for fraud, but we have not been able to suspend the licences of dishonest people who continue to be entrusted by physicians and patients to conduct and interpret tests whose accuracy is critical to the proper diagnosis and treatment of illness and disease.

In the case of some private hospitals, we have not been able to respond to the demands of coroners' juries that we immediately take action where the safety of patients is threatened, although ironically, as I stated, we are able to do this in our public hospitals.

Finally, our continuing problem with a few poorly operated nursing homes is familiar to every member of this House. This year my ministry has had to initiate legal proceedings against 32 nursing homes because the operators of those homes, after having been notified of violations of regulations contained in the Nursing Homes Act, failed to take the necessary corrective actions promptly.

Under the current legislation, the safety and health of residents remains under the control of operators during the period we are moving to revoke their licences. For example, we have been forced to rely on a rather cumbersome inspection process to oversee the care and safety of patients at Ark Eden Nursing Home for several months now, and I am advised the revocation hearing will not be held before October.

In the face of such frustrations, it is clear that additional safeguards are required to protect the health and safety of our people. Today I am introducing into the House a new bill which I believe will accomplish this objective. This bill, called the Health Facilities Special Orders Act, gives the Ministry of Health expanded authority for the regulating of nursing homes, ambulance services, private hospitals, medical laboratories and specimen collection centres.

Specifically, under the new bill, where the ministry believes the premises or operation of a facility is causing or is likely to cause harm to the health or safety of any person, we will have the right to move in and ensure that those using the service are adequately protected while proceedings are taking place to revoke the licence.

In the case of laboratories or specimen collection centres particularly, where levels of service or competence in some areas are inadequate and possibly hazardous to patients, we can order the licensee (

a) to suspend any specific activity until such time as we are satisfied that the service has improved and the activity will not cause harm or (

b) to cease the activity totally if we are not satisfied that it can be improved.

In each of these circumstances the ministry's intervention will be in effect as soon as it is received by the licensed operator, who of course will have recourse to the courts and appeal boards.

We will not manage any facility for any longer than necessary to ensure that the health and safety of everyone involved is adequately protected. This legislation provides appropriate limits on our involvement. However, we cannot continue to be frustrated by operators who are able to avoid the loss of their licence by bringing their operation into conformity briefly and then lapsing back once the hearing is over.

In

summary, we will be able to seek the revocation of licences on wider grounds, relevant to the fitness of the operator to hold a licence. Where we believe the health, safety or welfare of a patient or the public is being endangered, we will have the right to go in and do whatever is necessary to ensure the care and safety of our public and patients while revocation or other procedures are taking place.

In this way, all health care providers will see that the government is able to move against them with some reasonable assurance of success if they do not maintain adequate levels of patient care and protection. We will be able to do this while protecting the real property and facilities of the operators under legislation which provides limits on our tenure and a requirement for appropriate compensation.

The safeguards of both the courts and review boards will continue to be available, but operators will not be able to abuse them to delay correcting unsafe conditions or facilities, or to frustrate the expressed demands of the public that the protection of health and safety must be the paramount obligation of any licence holder. I know this principle has the unequivocal support of every member of this assembly.

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I have a fairly short statement but it may run a little over the time allotment. I wonder if we might have the agreement of the House that I complete my statement.

Mr. Speaker: Agreed? Proceed.

ONTARIO ELECTORAL DISTRICTS

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the House that today I will be tabling with the Clerk a notice of motion for debate next week to authorize a commission for redistribution of the electoral boundaries of Ontario, this commission to be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

The resolution is phrased very similarly to the one of 1973, which preceded the 1975 redistribution to the boundaries now in force.

Special elements in this resolution guarantee that there be not fewer than 15 northern ridings, as is now the case, and that the total number of ridings after the redistribution will be not less than 125 nor more than 130.

These terms of reference for the total number of ridings reflect the data from the 1981 census, which showed that any significant population growth had occurred chiefly in certain urban areas rather than province-wide. Notwithstanding that localized trend, this resolution calls for a full province-wide distribution study, with a guarantee of 15 northern seats.

The three commissioners, one of whom will be designated as chairman, will be appointed shortly by order in council in the traditional manner.

I draw attention to one other element of the resolution. Before reporting, the commission will prepare a map with described boundaries of each electoral district or group of districts. The commission will invite the public to respond to the map by publishing the map or its parts in general circulation newspapers in the proposed electoral districts. Those notices in the newspapers will provide times and places of public sittings by the commission and for the lodging of objections and representations in writing before a specified deadline.

The criteria for consideration of boundaries are very similar to those earlier commissions that were appointed. The usual 25 per cent variance from the average district population is maintained, with the usual special circumstance exemption also maintained.

The usual reporting and assembly consideration of the report is also maintained in this resolution.

ORAL QUESTIONS

REGULATION OF TRUST COMPANIES

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my friend the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations with respect to his ongoing regulation of trust companies in the province of Ontario.

The minister no doubt will be aware that in his absence last Monday, I asked a question of the Premier (Mr. Davis) with respect to the licensing of Greymac Trust Co. Just to refresh his memory, I will remind him that company was placed on a monthly licence in July 1982 because of concern about its real estate investments and its mortgages.

The minister will also be aware that on October 29, 1982, a member of the minister's staff wrote to Greymac Trust, warning the company that its complete disregard for the Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. guidelines "places your insurance coverage in jeopardy and consequently is a situation we cannot countenance."

Admitting, as the regulator suggested, that the depositors' funds were in jeopardy, can the minister explain to this House why that very same day the licence was restored to a yearly licence, giving virtual carte blanche back to that trust company?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, first let me correct a misapprehension the Leader of the Opposition has. I know he still has the same incorrect understanding of the letter as he had when he asked that question of the Premier on Monday. The letter does not say the depositors' funds were in jeopardy. It says the CDIC deposit insurance would be in jeopardy.

Second, in that letter there were a number of areas explored with respect to practices of Greymac Trust. I am referring to the letter of October 29, to which the Leader of the Opposition has access because it is a public document, having been tabled in one of the court actions, Mr. Speaker.

He will also know, having read that letter, that there was a requirement that the letter be countersigned by the person who I think was the then general manager or acting executive chief officer, acknowledging receipt and agreeing to comply with the remarks made in that letter.

First of all, let me say in advance that the Leader of the Opposition having an in-depth understanding of the Loan and Trust Corporations Act, as he does and I know he has, will know that under that act there was no authority to limit licences to any period of one month. That was clearly pointed out to the registrar by those parties.

With that objection having been raised and with the concurrence of the company to correct some of its practices, the reasons for issuing the licence for any longer term would be understood by him very easily and very clearly. That is not to say the ministry regulators were going to abandon their interest and pursuit of problems as they saw them in the company, nor did they.

Mr. Peterson: I assume what the minister is telling us then is that his regulators broke their own act in putting them on a monthly licence for a period of time before they restored it to an annual licence prior to the takeover of the company, on which we have still not had the full story.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: I ask the minister why the highest sources in his ministry are telling the following to reporters from Maclean's magazine, on the basis of off-the-record comments: "The concern was not directly about Rosenberg. Rosenberg and his associates were in the unfortunate position of being faced with having their assets seized, in part because of views the government has never dared to express, although officials voice them to Maclean's on a strict off-the-record basis,"

What are these views of the ministry's highest officials that the minister has never dared to express? What is the government hiding?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: First of all -- answering all parts of the question, as I know he would want me to -- what the member is saying is that the regulators should not have applied any limit to the licence even though they had some concerns. If that is what he is saying, then I do not think he means that. He is really commending the regulators for their energetic activities.

He also is acknowledging the role he played on December 21 in giving government and the regulators the powers to impose stipulations with respect to licences. He knows that was a deficiency. He understood it was a deficiency and he knows he supported a correction of that deficiency. For that, I publicly said he did good stuff and he should carry on being responsible. He should try it more often, he might like it.

Mr. Speaker: Answer the question, please.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Let me also say that I too have read the Maclean's story with interest. If the Leader of the Opposition wants an answer to that question, he will have to ask Maclean's, because as far as this minister and this government are concerned there were no other reasons than the reasons publicly stated for the actions we took.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, can the minister say whether it is still the intention of the government to bring its white paper on trust companies before this House before we rise in a couple of weeks?

Can the government now assure the House that restrictions will be put on ownership of trust companies to prevent the situation where trust companies are treated as personal instruments of self-aggrandizement by individual financiers rather than as institutions devoted to the public concerns?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I indicated in my statement of April 19 that, assuming the Morrison report were received by the end of May, it was our hope to be able to table a white paper by the end of June.

As the honourable member will know, there was subsequently an action brought before the courts to quash the Morrison inquiry on the grounds of bias. The hearing on that issue took place last week. The courts did not accept that motion, and the Morrison inquiry and the preparation of the report are continuing.

When that report is received, those who are involved in the preparation of the white paper will review that document in the light of those comments and the report will be prepared and tabled as soon as it is possible to do so. That is all I can assure the member at this time.

Mr. Peterson: I understand what the minister is saying is that he was not misquoted but that Maclean's was deliberately misrepresenting certain off-the-record conversations that he and his senior officials had with those reporters.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Peterson: My final question is: given all the problems attendant to these trust companies, how can the minister countenance the ongoing violations of the act that were occurring even recently?

I refer the minister to the property at 113 Dupont Street in Toronto; that cost $289,000 to assemble in 1980 and 1981. Just this last April 13, the property was the subject of two new mortgages, the first to Continental Trust for $590,000 and the second to the company he knows, Dominion Trust, for $300,000. There has been no construction work done on the property, and there is no building permit issued, to the best of our knowledge.

What is the basis of this $300,000 second mortgage to Dominion? Presumably the minister was there on top of the situation and watching this company, which he prevented from being taken over in December 1982. The minister will be aware, if he is monitoring this situation, that one of the companies owning this property is in the process of having its charter cancelled for nonpayment of corporate taxes. How can he countenance that going on right under his nose?

Mr. Rotenberg: How many questions do you want? You have already had three.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peterson: How can the minister countenance the situation at 220 Eglinton Avenue East in Toronto, where the minister will be aware that the building is mortgaged to more than 100 per cent of its purchase price? Is he aware that there is a further mortgage of $900,000 to a corporation represented by the Axton and Dexter law firm, this further mortgage representing well over 100 per cent of the acquisition price and assigned to Dominion Trust on April 18, 1983?

How can the minister allow this to go on and on, obviously violating the insurance guidelines, when he should be on top of it?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: If the Leader of the Opposition thinks the technique he is using and has tried to use now for several months -- and, I submit, unsuccessfully -- is convincing members that he has information the rest of the world is not aware of, then he is the only one being fooled. He knows very well I have answered on several occasions that there are a number of mortgage and other matters under review and under investigation in the trust companies referred to.

I have no further comment about those, but I do have a comment about the opening remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. I have said, and I say unequivocally, there were no reasons for the interventions made by this government other than the reasons that are on the table and in the public domain. To say otherwise, from my point of view, is inaccurate. If the Leader of the Opposition wishes answers to those questions, he knows who to direct them to, because I do not have the answers he is asking for. I only have the facts, and I have told the facts to this House.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I would like to bring to your attention that one question took 10 minutes. At the beginning of this session you told us you were going to protect the interests of all the members by being tougher. I do not see this happening.

Mr. Peterson: That is an excellent point my friend makes.

DEVELOPMENTALLY HANDICAPPED PEOPLE

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary for Social Development in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie). She will be aware --

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) is right there.

Mr. Peterson: I am sorry, he has been on my mind lately; in the absence of his colleague, his close friend to his left.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: That's the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea).

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peterson: Permit me, after a year and four months, to make one mistake. My friends should not be so uncharitable.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Now for the question.

Mr. Peterson: The provincial secretary will be aware of the ministry's policy with respect to government-sponsored personal attendant care for handicapped individuals who want to live on their own, in the sense that it has no policy. She will recognize that going to an order in council through cabinet is a very demeaning, long and messy procedure.

She will be aware of the case of David Anderson in London, who had to apply for an order in council and wanted very much to live on his own but was not granted that privilege. She will also be aware of the case of Helen McMichael, a 42-year-old woman from Kitchener suffering from muscular dystrophy, who applied through an order in council for assistance to live on her own and was turned down by the ministry.

Mr. Speaker: I assume this is going to lead to a question.

Mr. Peterson: She will be aware of thousands of other people who would like that kind of care in this province. Why would she and her colleagues not develop a policy to look after these kinds of people with special needs, who want to be on their own, rather than dragging them through this demeaning process of the order in council?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I do not feel it is a demeaning process. There are many individuals in this province who have been granted, through an order in council, the opportunity for attendant care so they may live independently, on their own.

I am sure the honourable member would be the first to point out to us that there is a tremendous responsibility for the government in this particular program to ensure that such a person is going to be looked after properly. He would be the first to criticize if we just implemented a policy very quickly whereby those with special needs were granted the attendant care and money was turned over without the reassurance that they were going to be taken care of, because the member will appreciate that the needs of these people in some instances are quite necessarily for 24-hour care.

He would criticize the government if we suddenly were to hand over thousands of dollars, with the initiative left to either friends or relatives to maintain that person and to make sure their needs were being met.

We are approaching this in the proper way. We are developing a program slowly, very carefully, making sure we do not experience some of the things that happened in California, where they quickly jumped into a program like this and found in many instances that people were being denied the very care the government was providing through financial support. I think we are developing it in the appropriate manner.

There are many people who have applied. After very careful consideration, the order in council has been passed and they are being able to live independent lives. I do not agree with the member; I think the government, through the Ministry of Community and Social Services, is showing a great deal of compassion for those people who want to live in this manner. I think it is an appropriate way to proceed.

Mr. Peterson: I remind the minister that she is not the mother of a lot of these handicapped people who do want to live on their own, who have requested orders in council and who have been turned down because she in her judgement did not feel they met the appropriate criteria.

I also remind the minister that the Ontario Advisory Council on the Physically Handicapped recommended some time ago that a mechanism should be available to allow handicapped individuals in need of attendant care to receive an allowance to meet these ends. That request was made some two years ago. Why has the minister not responded to that request, given the fact that, according to their estimates, some 2,600 people in this province would take advantage of that kind of a program and thereby free up chronic care beds or spaces in group homes? Why would the minister not respond to that most reasonable and sensitive request which would meet a number of ends at the same time?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I just want to clarify one thing the member said. I do not make those judgements; they are made in the Ministry of Community of Social Services by the minister himself, who has taken a very personal interest in those people who would like to have attendant care. There are many people out in the community now who have received order in council approval and are very successful.

I again submit to the member that we are going about it in the appropriate way to make sure those people who apply for that kind of assistance receive the kind of care that is necessary to keep them in the community.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, the minister will be aware of the case of a young boy in Essex South; I have raised it with her, and she is very familiar with it. Does she think it is appropriate that a family should have to go to welfare, Easter Seal, private insurance companies and government to try to receive the kind of assistance that individuals need to stay at home as opposed to going into chronic care facilities in hospitals? For one thing, homes are better; and second, they are cheaper for the government.

Why does the minister not bring in a comprehensive program where these things are brought under the Ontario health insurance plan and they can be provided at home?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I would be the first to suggest and recommend that such a program be implemented if I were sure those people with those very special needs were going to have those needs met in every instance. I am not assured they would be. Certainly, in some of the examples we have seen in states in the United States where they have implemented such a program, they ran into a great deal of trouble. I would rather have a clear conscience, knowing we were making sure in each instance where this was provided that their needs were going to be met.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this program was developed something like three or four years ago, if not longer, can the minister tell the House why a policy was adopted at that time whereby the cabinet was to view and consider every single application for order in council, and why it is that the majority of them are screened out and cabinet never gets even to see the majority of those applications'? Does she think that is an unfair way of dealing with that problem?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not; because in many instances it is an understandable desire on the part of people not to have to continue to live in an institution. Many of them make applications very quickly but, on further examination by the staff who undertake the review of those specific cases, it is determined that it is not appropriate for that person.

Mr. Boudria: But you never even get to see those reviews.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: No. We do not get to see those reviews. They are done and recommendations are put forward.

HEALTH FACILITIES SPECIAL ORDERS BILL

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health, who I think is in the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: He is not in his seat. Perhaps the member can proceed with --

Mr. Rae: He made a statement today, Mr. Speaker. I am sure he would not disappear having made that statement.

Mr. Speaker: He is on his way.

Mr. Rae: He is on his way. I see his hand. I might say by way of preface that I myself was disappointed that the minister, in addition to reading out his statement, did not read out the first item in the appendix to his statement, which is the press release of my colleague the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan), who we all know deserves the credit for the creation of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker: Now for the question.

Mr. Rae: I wish to ask the minister a question with respect to nursing homes. Can he explain the absence in his statement today of any reference to the very real problem of the lack of programming in terms of rehabilitation, stimulation and recreation; the lack of any reference to any of those changes which are so necessary, both to the Nursing Homes Act and to the nursing home regulations? Can he explain to the House the reason for the absence of any reference to those necessary changes which have to come?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I thought it would be inappropriate to take the time of the House to review all that since it was well covered in my remarks of Monday night last, a copy of which I know the honourable member has. In those remarks I did indicate that programming was under review and that it would be something we would be dealing with later in the year, and not in this session.

Mr. Rae: I simply say to the minister those things have been under review for a very long time indeed.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: What kind of hope is the minister holding out for a resident, for example, in one nursing home who is a stroke victim but has a very alert mind? He is placed on the same floor with patients who are seriously and emotionally disturbed. What hope can he offer to those patients who, today, are not receiving the kind of occupational therapy they need to be able to get around? What hope is he offering to those many residents in nursing homes who feel the lack of standards, who feel the lack of enforcement, but who see no action?

The minister says matters are under review. When is he going to make the kinds of changes in nursing homes which will make them the decent places they should be for people all the days of their lives?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I really do not have anything further to add in response to the member's daily inaccurate speech.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, we have not had a chance to see the actual legislation itself, but if the addendum and the comments made by the minister are correct, he is introducing some fairly wide-ranging legislation, covering not only nursing homes but potentially emergency services and other problem areas as well.

However, one area that is glaringly absent from his statement, and I hope he will deal with this before the end of this session, is the whole notion of the role of the ministry inspection services and whether and when that information becomes public.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Ms. Copps: We know in the case of Ark Eden Nursing Home, for example, that his colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) contacted his ministry to let them know there were very serious problems, and the ministry did not act.

Is the minister, as promised, going to bring in legislation that will make sure reports on inspection carried out by his ministry are made public to everyone in the community; is that going to be included with this package?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. However, it is the same one that was asked last week and the week before and, not surprisingly, my answer is exactly the same as it was last week, the week before and at estimates; that is, all of that will be available, as promised, on July 1, 1983. It will be there.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, it is no miracle that the minister discovered the act is unenforceable in the spring of 1983, because this is the first time his government has ever tried to enforce the act.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Was that a question?

Mr. McClellan: No, it was not. My supplementary concerns another omission, which has to do with financial disclosure or financial justification; there is nothing in the act that does that.

In view of the revelations about the Heritage Nursing Home, which took a profit of $362,000 out of its business in one year alone while spending less than $2 a day on food and less than two cents a day on recreation and activity, and in view of the staggering profits of Extendicare, which is able to buy and sell insurance companies and bid on Crown Trust; why are there no provisions in his legislation, and apparently no provisions anticipated, that would require both financial disclosure for nursing homes that are funded by his ministry and financial justification of the budget and the financial statements of the nursing homes that are subsidized to the tune of more than $200 million a year by our taxpayers?

Does the minister intend simply to allow his friends in the nursing home business to continue to make these kinds of humungous profits?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, that was again a great speech and terrific histrionics. In fact, the honourable member and his leader ought to be speaking tomorrow evening up in Ottawa, except that is a thinking audience which would laugh them out of the place.

Might I say very simply, after all that rhetoric is done, that the day the member wants to make a proposition to this House that we should pay people, be it in a per diem to a nursing home operator or in salaries and wages to nurses, nurses' aides and other people working in nursing homes, on the basis of their individual wealth and their individual assets, then we can have a serious conversation.

But if he wants to suggest that the rates we pay should be directly related to the bank account of the nursing home operator, he should put the same proposition with regard to the bank account of the nurse's aide who is working in there, the Canadian Union of Public Employees worker, and let CUPE come and bargain and say, "I'm sorry; this fellow needs more money and this person has a lot of money, so let's pay them differently."

It is the same proposition, but the member cannot see it because profit gets in the way and he believes it must be dirty if it is profit. I apologize for that handicap he faces, but of course that is why he is over there after all these years.

Mr. Rae: There is one rule for homes for the aged and one rule for private-profit nursing homes, and that is the discrepancy we are talking about.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

BLUEPRINT FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of the Environment a question about his announcement today, which I understand provided for a draft blueprint for a strategy that would lead to a public review process and finally would produce some kind of plan.

3 p.m.

I would like to ask the minister what kind of credibility does he think the Ministry of the Environment has with respect to this draft proposal for a blueprint for a strategy for a plan when the spills bill has been delayed for 42 months, the waybill system has been delayed for 56 months, the Malvern bill has been delayed for 30 months, the perpetual care fund, since it was first recommended, has been delayed for 45 months, the environmental assessment advisory committee has been delayed for 22 months and the question of the funding of citizens' groups has been delayed for 63 months since it was first raised in an environmental hearing?

What kind of credibility does the minister think his ministry has, given the delay in dealing with the questions of coping with the tremendous problem of hazardous waste disposal?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I think it is obvious that some of the issues the member cites predate his presence around this Legislature. Had he had an opportunity to be here throughout that time, he might have a better understanding of the complexities of some of these issues.

For example, the question he raised relating to the spills regulation is simple to answer but complex to resolve. There are meetings scheduled -- and lately there have been frequent meetings -- in response to the input we received from the public over a couple of months in the latter part of last year when the draft was finally ready for circulation to invite public participation.

A number of issues were raised. One of the most difficult to resolve, without the process we are undergoing at the moment, relates to the availability of the kind of insurance the regulation contemplated. We were getting from such private sector representatives as the Canadian Manufacturers' Association information that it would not be possible for them to get the insurance that was anticipated. The word we were getting from the insurance industry was that it was available.

To resolve that, we hired a consultant expert in the insurance field who has now reported to us. A meeting involving the Canadian Manufacturers' Association is scheduled for tomorrow, and one early next week which will involve both the CMA and the insurance --

Mr. Speaker: That is a tremendous answer.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I think it is important that --

Mr. Speaker: It is indeed.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- the member should at least acknowledge that the problems we are trying to resolve are much more complex than he would portray them to be in his rather --

Mr. Speaker: Right; I was just going to ask that you summarize that.

Mr. Rae: I would like to ask the minister if he can answer me with respect to one particular issue and one particular problem, the funding of citizens' groups. In particular, I would like to draw the minister's attention to the fact that in London the Citizens Coalition to Maintain the Environment has spent $89,000 in legal and technical fees in order to voice its concerns at an environmental assessment hearing over the proposed incinerator at the Victoria Hospital.

The hospital had a $450,000 grant from the Ministry of Energy to put forward its side of the case. I would like to ask the minister, given the fact the hearing is now completed, whether he is prepared today to fund fully the payments that have been made by the citizens' group, in light of the fact that its arguments are very important and will possibly set a precedent with respect to other incinerators planned across the province.

Forgetting about all the complexities for the moment and focusing on the problem, is the minister prepared in this instance to act in order to allow citizens' groups to do their job for the environment in this province?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I would invite the member to think for one moment about what he has said. He is imploring me to abandon all sense of equity and fairness in the treatment of such groups, because he suggested I forget about the complexities and proceed on the one issue he has raised today without regard to the complexity of the situation. That is a foolish suggestion on his part. Even he should recognize that.

If he pauses for a moment and thinks about what it is he really is asking: first of all, that issue was resolved and it has always been resolved, that has not been an issue awaiting resolution. The policy of my ministry and the policy of this government is clear; we do not fund those groups. There is a provision in the consolidated hearings legislation for the awarding of costs.

Mr. Speaker: I think that was the question he asked.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, on a matter of personal privilege or order, may I address the matter?

Mr. Speaker: No, I think that was the specific question.

Hon. Mr. Norton: No, actually I was just about to address the specific question. In all fairness, Mr. Speaker, I was.

Mr. Speaker: I think you addressed it very well; thank you.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, the minister will probably remember it was a predecessor of his who brought out a policy guidebook statement in November 1978, entitled Water Management, which indicated high-sounding principles of never endangering the quality of the water that was already found to be clean and well cared for in Ontario, and never degrading the quality of the water that was already degraded to a certain extent. In 1978, those were the programs. Since then we have had ground water contamination at Stouffville, Perkinsfield and at other sites.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Elston: The minister has failed to live up to the guidelines that the ministry set out in 1978. How does he intend to live up to the guidelines he is setting out in this blueprint he has just announced?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member surely recognizes that the specific problems we are now addressing at certain specified landfill sites he has mentioned are problems that have not arisen since 1978. In each and every one of those cases, the problem predates the existence of my ministry.

As far as the guidelines he refers to are concerned, I would invite him, on the other hand, to demonstrate where we have created the problems he has identified in the practices and policies of this government as reflected in waste management in this province in the period intervening, the period following that time.

We are living with certain historic problems and we are addressing them very effectively in this province. In fact, I suggest to him we are addressing them more effectively than any other jurisdiction on the face of the earth.

Mr. Chariton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to the minister's original comments about the delays in proclaiming the spills bill. He is aware the question has been raised with him a number of times over the course of the last three years. When we raised the question with him last year, the only delay that seemed to be impeding the proclamation, and this is from the minister's own lips, was the finalization and circulation of the regulations. Why did it take him three and one half years to discover this insurance problem? When is he going to stop getting suckered by those out there who do not want this legislation in place and will continue to play these games with him to avoid it?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, there is something about the pot calling the kettle black; when the member starts throwing around the word "suckered," I think he had better look inwardly for a moment.

Hon. Mr. Davis: There are some 20 of them; I am referring philosophically.

Hon. Mr. Norton: That is right. The honour- able member is quite right in that we had the regulation drafted and ready to proceed last fall. By virtue of the fact the committee

schedule would not permit the hearing, or at least the return to committee that my predecessor in this ministry was committed to

Mr. Elston: That is not so.

Hon. Mr. Norton: That is so.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections.

Hon. Mr. Norton: The member knows very well I went to the representatives of his caucus and that caucus, and the chairman of the committee.

Mr. Elston: The minister told us he wanted to do it this way. That was not the whole story. He should tell us the whole story.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I was ready to go to committee with it last fall. It was not my staff that prevented it happening.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Norton: May I answer the question?

Mr. Speaker: Just respond to the question from the member for Hamilton Mountain.

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Norton: The facts will speak for themselves. I recall I suggested an alternative that we circulate it to the public for comment and we did that in the latter part of last fall. Surely the member would be the first to criticize me if I had circulated a document for public comment and then ignored the public comment.

Mr. Chariton: Answer the question. Why did it take the minister four and half years to find out?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Norton: In pursuit of resolving the issues raised by members of the public -- although they may not be members of the public the member would do anything to recognize or help -- we proceeded to try to resolve that.

Why were we not aware of that problem before? We felt we were getting reliable advice. That has now been confirmed. There were certain other members of the public who felt they were getting reliable advice that conflicted with what we were getting. That issue I hope will be resolved within the next week or so.

SAFE DRINKING WATER

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to ask this of the verbose minister. However, we had a question on the other statement concerning his intervention.

On the nine-page statement we received -- it was supplemented later by a 10th page -- the minister indicated he would be filing papers to take intervener status. Can he say why he decided to forsake the advice of the Canadian environmental department and the requests of the civilian interest groups? They requested he provide them with the financial and technical backing they required since they were already in the process of getting intervener status? Why would he endanger the whole issue by going ahead himself to open up another action on this issue?

Mr. Speaker: Before the Minister of the Environment answers that question, I would ask all honourable members to please curtail their private conversations in the House: the members for Carleton (Mr. Mitchell) and for Mississauga South (Mr. Kennedy). Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, surely the honourable member realizes I have been exceedingly patient and co-operative with the requests of the federal government since last fall. For nine months I have waited patiently, urging them at every step to take the next step, for what has turned out to be a nonproductive exercise. I have listened to their advice. I have urged them to move more swiftly and I have advised against their course of action.

However, recognizing their jurisdiction in international relations, I treated it with respect. It is clear it did not produce the desired results. Therefore I have taken the initiative I set out to take nine months ago before they delayed the process.

With regard to the private groups, we have dealt with that question before in the House. There is a very clear distinction between the interests represented by a special interest group, albeit one that has great integrity -- I am not questioning that -- and the responsibility that a duly elected democratic government has to the people of this province. I am not about to abandon my responsibility by passing it off onto the shoulders of a private special interest group whose members are not elected.

Surely, the member understands that distinction. I believe in responsible government and I will act responsibly. I am not going to slough off my responsibility on any action group, however good and full of integrity it might be.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, the minister certainly has digressed a long way from the former minister. In the estimates of October 23, 1979, the former minister made it very clear they were not going to participate in the hearings and made light of the fact that I suggested he should.

We have gone such a long time and have done nothing to clear up that waterway that we have gone past the point of whether there is going to be a cleanup or intervention or not. Now the minister says the program is going to take three years and $1 million to find out the quality of the water.

Having failed on the one hand to go over there and fight those people about dumping contaminants, does he not think he at least now owes the people of Ontario some kind of considerably shortened program that will get on with a job that has been needed to be done for the last five or six years? Why does he not tell us now that he is not going to live with three years and $1 million, but is going to go after cleaning the water up immediately?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, we are doing both things at the same time. We are not relying exclusively upon one course of action or the other.

We have been more involved in dealing with the American jurisdiction on the issue of water quality in the Niagara River than I recognize the member will ever give us credit for. My ministry staff and I personally have been involved constantly over the last couple of years on that issue. The member must recognize that about 99 per cent of the input into the Niagara River originates on the American side. Therefore, I have some limitations in terms of acting with any jurisdiction across the border.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Of course, we have been repeatedly successful in getting them to take action.

Mr. Kerrio: Three years is too long.

Hon. Mr. Norton: To whit: the Niagara Falls waste water treatment plant; New York state gives us credit for having precipitated the action on the part of the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States in releasing $6 million to rebuild that plant. The member cannot accuse us of not having taken action and sit there with a straight face, he must do it tongue in cheek; but he should not close his mouth too quickly or he might bite it.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, has the minister discussed the impact of the intervention with Pollution Probe and Operation Clean Niagara and their counsel? Can he tell us what steps he plans to take to ensure there will not be a problem of contradictory evidence being presented to the court by the interveners: the Ontario government and the two citizens' groups?

I am sure the minister will appreciate that has been the concern all along of Operation Clean Niagara, Pollution Probe and their counsel with respect to the possibility of intervener status being taken by the Ontario government. Can the minister tell us what steps he plans to put into effect to ensure that will not happen and that the case will be strengthened and not confused by the intervention of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I met with Pollution Probe quite some time ago and discussed that very issue. I cannot legitimately say I have met with the whole board or whatever of Operation Clean Niagara. I have met with Mrs. Howe and we discussed that very briefly at a meeting in Niagara-on-the-Lake in which we participated a couple of months ago. I do not see that as a big problem from our side.

When I met with Pollution Probe I made it very clear we were willing to share -- and at that time had already given them a copy of our hydrogeological report on the S area -- our complete information with them as it became available. I foresee only one problem. Unless Pollution Probe changes its approach, which is that it will share none of its information with anybody, then there may be some risk; but it will not be created by our policy or our open approach. If at all, it will be because Pollution Probe is taking a very secretive approach to its generation of information.

ELMER THE SAFETY ELEPHANT

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Transportation and Communications on behalf of millions of Ontario school children.

Notwithstanding the minister's reputation as a big game hunter in Ontario, why has he grievously wounded one of the best-known and most beloved creatures in Ontario, Elmer the Safety Elephant, by eliminating his support for the materials being supplied to schools and police departments? Why did he pick on poor Elmer for a paltry $30,000?

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Nixon: Nothing is sacred.

Mr. Boudria: You insulted Elmer.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, first, Elmer is alive and well. The Elmer program is still alive; it is still being sponsored; it is being administered by the Ontario Safety League, as it has been. The Elmer flags were always a program of the safety league and not of the ministry. That program is still being carried on; and we still have our programs, Sam the Safety Duck and all those other things, for the school children. Unfortunately, some of the publicity that came about regarding poor Elmer was not quite right.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary question? I am not sure whether this is of urgent public importance, but I will hear it.

Mr. Samis: On behalf of the school children of Ontario I want to point out that the minister has spent $35,300 on the garage extension in Clinton; on this one he has saved $30,000. Why is the minister in effect privatizing, to a certain extent, safety programs in Ontario? What it means is that the Ontario Safety League has to go out and beg for money to make up for that $30,000.

Second, can the minister tell the school children of this province before they go on holidays if he has any plans to attack any of their other beloved creatures?

Hon. Mr. Snow: First, I am certainly not against privatization. I believe in private enterprise, which may be a different philosophy from that of certain people on the other side of the House.

The Ontario Safety League is an organization that my ministry works very closely with. We give the Ontario Safety League certain financial support by way of grants. We work with them on research projects.

No, we are not going to kill Sam the Safety Duck; he is certainly alive and well too.

WHITE FARM EQUIPMENT CANADA LTD.

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Trade regarding the failure of the refinancing negotiations with White Farm Equipment Canada Ltd.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, it is true that all loans at the bank are current and there is no principal or interest owing on the loans. Basically, there is a fundamental difference of opinion between the federal and provincial governments with respect to restructuring. We have always taken the approach that in this interim period when the banks originally called the loan, which is 90 days ago, we would try to put together a proposal, or at least a restructuring, that might allow this company to continue functioning in Brantford and, we hope, in the international markets so that when there was a restoration of the market they would be able to take full advantage of it.

The federal government is of a different mind with regard to whether the White company can continue or should continue. In fact, our senior people were in Kansas City on Friday of last week and made an arrangement that might have seen a restructuring if there had been willing partners on the part of the provincial and federal governments. I do not know whether the federal government is prepared to be part of that or not, but I would suspect they are not. I think it is just a fundamental difference of opinion that exists between us and the federal government on the issue.

We stand ready to go through a restructuring, provided that the security of the public taxpayer is not in any away seriously altered. We think the value of the company is there; we think there has been no significant diminution in the value of the company in the last year. There is no willing buyer available, to our knowledge. We would be prepared to go through a restructuring, and we hope the federal government might take a look at it in that favourable light. However, if they choose not to, we hope they are right, because if they are wrong, it is going to lead to the loss of that business in Brantford, period.

If that is the case. I think it would be very unfortunate. We happen to think we are right in the proposal but they have the authority on the question. That being the case, we are going to have to ride along with whatever their decision is.

Mr. Gillies: By way of supplementary: The receivership, in and of itself, is not a disaster if there is another willing buyer for the company. I would ask the minister, is either his ministry or the federal Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce aware of a willing buyer? Or is the federal government playing fast and loose with 1,000 Brant county families?

Hon. Mr. Walker: We know of no potential buyer. That is why we have attempted to restructure through a process with the current company that involves the Borg-Warner finance company from the United States. In fact, Borg- Warner is prepared to refinance the Canadian operation, having already refinanced the American operation. Borg-Warner recently put $38 million into the American operation, in the last few months, and were prepared to put forward a further $20 million to restructure the Canadian operation. We think that is probably the right route to go.

If the federal government is wrong, we have a problem. If they are right, and we hope they are, the company might survive. But in terms of receivership, we know of no potential buyer and we have canvassed all of them.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, since the minister was a leading proponent of the sellout of the formerly Canadian firm to TIC Investment Corp. a year ago, does he not think he can still maintain that high profile role, particularly since he believes the company, in its present incarnation, is viable?

He could at least give the sort of assistance to the company that was extended to certain other companies in difficult times, so that the present ownership would have a continued chance to maintain its operation here, particularly in view of the fact that neither he nor his federal colleague have been able to find anyone, anywhere, apparently, who showed any interest in assuming the responsibility for the management of a continuing concern.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer to that, in short, is yes. We are prepared to try to find any possible way of resurrecting the company. We think if it goes into receivership, which it presumably will on June 16, it will be down for several months, and will not likely be resurrected for some time. If, on the other hand. a new buyer can be found, we are anxious to find one. We would certainly be prepared to be a part of any kind of restructuring that protects the interests of the taxpayer and, we hope, retains that company in an operative form in Brantford. We are worried about it leaving Brantford. That is the main consideration we have.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the minister that just last year, when he was instrumental in selling out this company to American interests, he said there were good values that came from foreign ownership, such as management expertise, technology transfer and capital. Since capital seems to be one of the problems in keeping this company going, would the minister at least look at some options like the buy-back policy to bring this company back into Canadian hands?

Can he guarantee that the technology this company has developed in its combine will not be transferred out of Canada if the company does go into receivership? That technology should stay here. I hope it can be used in Brantford. At this time, thanks to the lack of economic management of this government, four per cent of the people in that city are collecting welfare rather than working and paying taxes.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, the three points made in respect of foreign ownership still stand totally. The capital is available; the financing is available; the expertise is available. There is no question of that. We are prepared to look at the possibilities of a buy-back. The technology is mortgaged by the federal government, in essence, and the licences are there. It is highly unlikely that will be released to any other country. I do not expect that what the member is suggesting will happen.

3:30 p.m.

PROVINCIAL LOTTERIES

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Premier: Given the revelations of the last few days with respect to an Ontario resident who became addicted to the province's lotteries, and because that person may be sentenced later for fraud of $183,000, does the Premier have any intention of investigating how this could have happened without it being noticed or reported to someone in the Ontario Lottery Corp?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I do not quite understand the question. Is the member looking for another lottery, or what really is the intent of the question?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am serious.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Ruston: I will go a little farther. I tried to make the question brief, so maybe the Premier would have the opportunity to make his answer brief. I know of his moral fabric and his institutional and family background and that he would not want the lotteries to cause any problems to our families. It can happen, as we can see here and probably in many other cases. Her lawyer said $5,000 worth of tickets a week were bought at the same store. Does the Premier not think that storekeeper should have reported it to the Ontario Lottery Corp. or somebody to look into such a matter before it got so far?

Hon. Mr. Pope: A new Liberal manifesto.

Ms. Copps: You should know, you used to be a Liberal.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Lots of people used to be Liberals.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) used to be a Liberal.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Still is.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, she is not; she is a member of the "community party."

Mr. Speaker: Back to the question.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is the "Peterson party."

I am really trying to get at the essence of the question. Is the honourable member suggesting that everybody selling lottery tickets should be making a mental note of who is buying and the number they are buying, and report it to the corporation?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is the impression I got.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Does the Premier think that possession of more than five lottery tickets should be a criminal offence in Ontario?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Answer yes or no.

Hon. Mi. Davis: That cannot really be answered yes or no, but in the 16 seconds that remain, I would not want to preclude a person like the member, with his economic substance from all the moneys he has saved by not eating as well as he should, from buying several tickets a week. It would be good for him, give him an outlet and divert him from the socialistic behaviour of his colleagues. He would find it a lot of fun. My bet is that if he won he would become a capitalist overnight.

VISITORS

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes), and as a very special exception to the rules of the House, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the presence of our guests in the front row of the east gallery. There are five students from Fort Severn, which is some 1,000 miles away from this place, visiting us in this assembly with their teacher, Mr. Blythe. Next week they will have the pleasure of visiting with my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon and the Lieutenant Governor at home, but I thought we should welcome them for making the journey here today.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to join in the welcome and I sincerely hope they haven't been disappointed.

INSPECTION OF NURSING HOMES

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order with respect to the filing of documents by the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) on Monday last. In those documents was a list of the names of several nursing homes against which they were proceeding, indicating there were outstanding legal matters that were affecting the status or could affect the status of those nursing homes.

He listed the names of Brook Haven Nursing Home in the township of Turnberry and the Callander Nursing Home in the village of Brussels in my riding. At the date of the filing of those documents, and I communicated this information to the minister's office on Tuesday, all outstanding matters had been corrected.

They were in compliance with all regulations and, in fact, had to replace two doors that became out of date via new regulations.

Mr. Speaker, my point of order basically is that if documents of this sort, which cause a great deal of public confusion and cause concern among my constituents, are to be filed, all the information available with respect to any charges which are laid by any ministry, and which then become public through this route, and all of the documents relating to current status must and should be filed at the same time.

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr. Eves from the standing committee on administration of justice reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amount and to defray the expenses of the Provincial Secretary for Justice be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984:

Justice policy program, $1,228,800.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

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

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill 41,

An Act to regulate the Granting of Degrees.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Was that an estimates report?

Mr. Speaker: No.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HEALTH FACILITIES SPECIAL ORDERS ACT

Hon. Mr. Grossman moved, seconded by Hon. Mrs. Birch, first reading of Bill 64,

An Act respecting Certain Health Facilities.

Motion agreed to.

PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wiseman moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Gregory, first reading of Bill 65,

An Act to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: If I might have the indulgence of the House, I have a motion. I was not aware of it at the time. Could I ask the House if we could revert to motions?

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps we could finish the introduction of bills and then revert. The Minister of Labour had already risen.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Ramsay moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Ashe, first reading of Bill 66,

An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, this bill will increase compensation benefits for the province's injured workers by five per cent, effective July 1, 1983.

FRONTIER COLLEGE ACT

Mrs. Scrivener moved, seconded by Mr. Harris, first reading of Bill Pr2,

An Act respecting Frontier College.

Motion agreed to.

AVIAN EMBLEM ACT

Mr. Pollock moved, seconded by Mr. Havrot, first reading of Bill 67, the Avian Emblem Act.

Motion agreed to.

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Gregory moved that the standing committee on resources development be authorized to sit on the afternoon and evening of Monday, June 13, 1983.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 2,

An Act to provide for the Formulation and Implementation of Emergency Plans;

Bill 3,

An Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act;

Bill 4,

An Act to amend the Collection Agencies Act;

Bill 5,

An Act to amend the Boilers and Pressure Vessels Act;

Bill 13,

An Act to amend the Vital Statistics Act;

Bill 23,

An Act to amend the Ministry of Government Services Act.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Ashe moved third reading of Bill 43,

An Act to amend the Income Tax Act.

Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of Mr. Ashe's motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

THIRD READINGS (CONCLUDED)

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 49,

An Act to amend the Niagara Parks Act.

Bill 57,

An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Bill 41,

An Act to regulate the Granting of Degrees.

3:40 p.m.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY CONVERSION PROGRAM

Mr. Kolyn moved, seconded by Mr. MacQuarrie. resolution 6:

That, in view of the increasing efficiency and economy of converting to alternative energy fuels in motor vehicles, and as a further example of the government's leadership role in stimulating interest in and appreciation for energy conservation, this House urges the government to consider implementation of an alternative energy conversion program for all government vehicles, where such conversion is possible and financially cost effective.

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, before I address the numerous merits of this resolution, allow me to thank those members from all parties who participated in today's earlier discussion on propane fuels. By all accounts, it was a pleasant and informative success. Many issues were clarified and I hope several insights were gained.

This afternoon I would like to build on the success of the luncheon gathering with my parliamentary colleagues, some of whom view certain aspects of this resolution with reservations and many of whom share my support for the resolution's purpose. I would briefly like to do three things:

One, clarify the objective of the resolution; two, discuss the reasons the resolution deserves the unanimous, nonpartisan support of this House; and three, interpret the importance and significance of this resolution's passage outside this House.

3:50 p.m.

I shall begin by summarizing the goal I have set in presenting this ballot item. With this resolution, I am attempting to draw attention to and maintain interest in the immense amount of effort that is being invested in alternative energy fuels by this government, by other jurisdictions and by the private sector in our province.

All members are well versed in the fundamental transformation that has taken place in the world economy during the last 10 years, in regard to the cost of conventional energy. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries is now 10 years old, its existence confirmation of the dramatic change that has enveloped our province and country.

As I reflect on the progress we have made in responding to that challenge with our fuel-efficient cars and energy conservation, I am struck by the distance still to be travelled towards new fuels and perhaps new methods of transportation and production. It is with this in mind I present my ballot item.

It is true I have concentrated my attention on propane fuel, a subject I shall soon describe in detail, but please do not be misled. I have highlighted propane in my efforts only because it is a fuel of tomorrow, ready for use today. In due time, compressed natural gas, hydrogen, methanol and other fuels will make a significant contribution in our society.

Today, however, I would like to confine my remarks to propane. My colleagues will not be surprised to learn that this government already manages an alternative energy fuels program and, I can proudly add, it is a program run with considerable success. One of the highlights of this off-oil policy is Drive Propane, a program operated in association with conversion of government vehicles to a propane fuel system.

Here are certain facts that may be surprising. There are 22,000 propane-powered vehicles in Ontario and more than 1,100 propane stations in the province to service them. More than $100 million have been invested in propane fuel systems by the private sector in Ontario. The province operates 700 propane vehicles, almost 10 per cent of the total government fleet.

Let me turn to the second order of business today. Why should this House endorse an alternative energy fuels program and, in particular, the government's commitment to propane? There is not time to answer this question in detail, so I shall be brief. For the following reasons, propane fuel, in the context of this resolution, merits the positive consideration of this House:

1. Efficiency: Propane is an economic fuel priced at between 50 and 60 per cent of the cost of gasoline. Individuals pay no retail sales tax or road tax on propane. Fleet operators receive an additional $400 from Ottawa to defray the costs of conversion.

2. Convenience: 1,100 propane stations are scattered throughout Ontario. Travel Ontario lists 450 stations, complete with addresses and hours of business. Filling up on propane is as quick and easy as filling up on gasoline.

3. Performance: Propane enters the carburetor as a vapour; therefore it mixes more thoroughly with air. As a result, propane burns completely and efficiently. Engines require fewer tuneups, engine parts stay cleaner, acceleration is improved and spark plugs last longer.

4. Ecology: Propane is a clean, lead-free fuel. As combustion is more complete, carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions are significantly lower compared to gasoline. Propane-powered vehicles meet every pollution control regulation enacted by the tough Environmental Protection Agency in the United States.

5. Source: Propane is an abundant Canadian fuel. Currently, about 40,000 barrels of propane are exported to the United States and abroad each day. Were there a demand for propane, this exported amount could fuel an additional 560,000 Canadian vehicles with energy made in Canada.

6. Safety: Propane is as safe or safer than gasoline if used properly. This fact was detailed by the research film shown at today's luncheon. Some members might have missed it and some might have reservations about propane because of recent newspaper articles concerning the fuel, so I would note that when there is improper installation, refuelling or operation of propane systems or those of any other fuel problems will inevitably be encountered; nevertheless, the solution to these problems is straightforward.

The propane industry must be subject to whatever regulation and market encouragement exists that will guarantee the integrity of the fuel system. Just as in the early days of gasoline, propane users must be assured of honest, competent mechanics and high quality equipment.

Some members may wish to say the economic inducements I mentioned at the beginning do not apply to government vehicles. This is absolutely correct. There may not be one more vehicle in the provincial fleet that could be converted to propane economically. If this is true I shall be satisfied that we have tried to save taxpayers more money.

The government's objective in launching this program has been to demonstrate restraint to the taxpayers and leadership to the private sector in showing propane is here to stay as an alternative energy fuel. Regardless of our political differences these are two highly commendable goals worthy of the nonpartisan support of this entire House.

In conclusion, I would like to address the larger context within which the passage of this resolution so comfortably fits. Our acceptance of propane fuel as an alternative to conventional energy demonstrates the commitment this Legislature possesses towards future fuels.

Already the Ford Motor Co. produces a propane-powered vehicle. Chrysler Corp. is marketing a retrofitted propane vehicle. The major oil companies, which as recently as two years ago were indifferent about propane stations, are all accelerating their efforts to capture the growing propane markets. The 1,100 propane stations I mentioned earlier are only an estimate of the number of stations in Ontario. The exact number is hard to calculate because new outlets are opening each week.

The point is, the private sector has embraced propane because it makes sense -- and dollars too. We can stand back and watch as propane and other alternative fuels replace gasoline or we can show leadership. If there are no longer savings to be made from propane in the government fleet, that is good to know. I ask only that an effort be made to find out.

Moreover, there are other ways we can show leadership. Perhaps we should consider a procurement policy that favours off-the-line propane vehicles. That is one way of demonstrating our continued support of propane to General Motors, the only automobile manufacturer among the Big Three to stay out of the propane-powered new car market today.

Ministers of the government may wish to consider having their executive vehicles converted to propane. Members may already be aware that my colleague the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) is driving a propane-powered vehicle and demonstrating important leadership in that process.

Finally, each one of us may want to consider a propane vehicle for our personal use. If the type of automobile we drive, our driving habits and the frequency of automobile use suggest a propane fuel system, I urge my colleagues to investigate further.

Members may be interested to know that a vehicle converted to propane will pay for itself after 20,000 to 25,000 miles. For more information, I ask members to direct their inquiries to my friend the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller). He is raving about his propane vehicle, and his commitment to restraint is the stuff that great Treasurers are made of.

4 p.m.

In conclusion, I shall repeat only one thing. This is a resolution with leadership as its purpose. Although propane fuel is still in its infancy stage here in Ontario, the fuel has been used for decades in Europe. Thus, it is up to this House to demonstrate the leadership necessary for our constituents and other jurisdictions to understand that we are serious about propane today and alternative fuels tomorrow. With the support of my colleagues we shall take one more step towards realizing that goal.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should thank the members on the opposite side for welcoming my comments. I am sure they realize I am going to support this proposal for a couple of reasons -- maybe more than a couple, maybe many.

First, I think the honourable member is putting forward a resolution that is worth supporting. He is to be commended for taking the time to invite members to meet with various officials from some of the ministries of whom we were able to ask questions in the areas of safety and costs. I appreciate that very much, and I thank the member for having taken the time to put on such a forum.

I find the resolution just a little difficult as it relates to a member putting forward some real leadership and then attempting to suggest he is representing a government that is taking the same kind of leadership. Members in all parties know that is not quite true. The government has had a commitment over many years, just as they do in many other policy fields.

Rather than go through new bills and procedures and put back on the record those things that have been put there before and those promises that have not been kept, I propose the following.

Until the next election, when we take over and put something meaningful into place by putting our money where our mouths are and doing the things we know have to be done -- which this government also knows have to be done but which it is not doing -- maybe one of the most meaningful things that could be done would be to take that member from the back row, put him in the front row and give him the responsibility to put into place what the government has been talking about for a long time.

Interjection.

Mr. Kerrio: The promises have been made. We need someone over there to keep the promise. "Keep the promise" is the key phrase.

The fact of the matter is that while we applaud this resolution, we fully support the member's criticism of his government's energy policy because in reality that is what he is doing. He has learned a little from the Premier (Mr. Davis) on how to skate around various issues, but really what he is saying is: "My government has failed to do this very simple thing. I would like the members to support me in order to maybe shake the government just a little without forcing them into doing something that should have been done a good long while ago."

It is perfectly obvious to us and to the member that this government does not take alternative energy seriously. We understand the frustration the member must feel, since he too has been begging the government for so many years for a genuine commitment to observe conservation techniques and renewable energy technology. The tokenism has just been ridiculous.

There is quite a difficult problem over there, because they cannot leave the alternative energy, the conservation and all those great and wonderful things that should he done in the hands of Ontario Hydro, as has been the case. The ministry has not taken the initiative. They cannot tell me that Hydro -- which has a definite conflict, as is now proven by its new thrust in going out again to sell the excess electricity -- is going to do anything meaningful in the way of alternative fuels, energy conservation or those things that go against the grain of what Ontario Hydro is attempting to do.

Given their druthers, the Ministry of Energy and Ontario Hydro are going to push hydrogen. We all remember when we were in high school that we took two tubes, introduced a flow of electricity, separated H2O into the various gases, took a little match and lit the one on the hydrogen side, heard the pop and knew there was energy there. Although it is not often said, we put four times the electricity in to get one unit of power out; so hydrogen is really not a fuel unless there is the major breakthrough that some of the great and wonderful scientists we have today are talking about and have in the works.

Unless there is such a breakthrough, we shall not see anything meaningful relating to hydrogen fuel, except in bailing Hydro's poor management out of 50 per cent overbuilding and in that way using up some of that surplus electrical energy we have. Then, if we use hydrogen, we will be using nuclear fuel, coal, oil and whatever else we burn and some hydraulics to propel our vehicles, which seems to be going backwards in this modern age.

Propane is a fuel that is on hand. It is something I personally have used for 25 years, not in a motor vehicle but in the forklifts around our plant and in some of our other machinery. It is nothing new to us. Propelling an internal combustion engine with propane makes uncommonly good sense. The only thing that hurts me as a Canadian is the fact that we are exporting such large amounts of propane. That should not be done.

Those fuels, if we had a real commitment by this government, would be used in a meaningful changeover into the propulsion of our vehicles with propane. There would be a meaningful thrust by the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) to bring more --

Mr. Stokes: One would have thought that policy was federal.

Mr. Kerrio: I am beginning to be very much less partisan; whoever comes up with a good idea, I am prepared to support.

In conjunction with not shipping so much propane out of the country and propelling our buses and our automobiles -- that is a place we cannot use electricity unless we go the devious way of using hydrogen; although I think electricity should be used in its form to power our intercity buses and railways, and we should bring more gas into this province. I am sure, by using common good sense, we could be completely self-sufficient in energy in this nation if we were to use the kinds of fuels the way they should be used.

The problem rests with the government over there. While the member is attempting to suggest his government has taken the leadership, he is really saying in his own way, "I think we should be doing something along the lines of my resolution." If the government were doing what he is suggesting it is doing, we would not need this resolution.

I have with me many copies of all kinds of publications put out by the ministry over the past 10 or 15 years. There is a terrible waste of taxpayers' money on these beautiful shiny brochures that tell us year after year what a commitment this government has to alternative fuels, to conservation, to all the things that augur well for Ontario.

If we were to go into it the way we should, we would have a jurisdiction here that would certainly create more jobs in relation to those kinds of carburation systems and their installation. We just have not had that kind of leadership. I am pleased to see a private member take the initiative over there. I am hopeful that the government is going to listen.

4:10 p.m.

I am disappointed the Minister of Energy is not here, and that a few of the other ministers are not here. It is not good enough just to read Hansard. They should be here participating. They should be here to listen to those people who I think are much closer to the grass roots.

I think once one is elevated to the grand and glorious position of the ministers, one loses a little touch with the common folk. I say again to the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Kolyn) that this is a good bill, but it is not new.

Mr. Samis: It's a resolution.

Mr. Kerrio: I thank the member. This is a good resolution. We are going to support it. I am sure the members of the governing party are going to support it. I am sure the third party is going to support it. I think you have a winner here, Al. As I said before, I compliment you and I support your initiative.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson): Just before I recognize the member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis), I remind the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) that the correct form of address during debate is by the member's riding name.

Mr. Kerrio: Al from Lakeshore; that's what I said.

The Acting Speaker: Sorry; I just missed the second part.

Mr. Samis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Unlike Vince, I will not make any comments on --

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, on point of personal privilege: I think you missed the intent. I very seldom use anyone's name. I thought that in this instance I was telling that member I felt very personal about supporting his resolution.

Mr. Samis: I want to speak in support of the resolution. First of all, I want to compliment the members opposite. I know they are under the whip's orders and would all rather be somewhere else this afternoon, partaking in the festivities along the banks of the Ottawa River. As the member for Niagara Falls has pointed out, there are no cabinet ministers here. It is always the poor back-benchers who have to put in the long hours, while some of the higher-ups are enjoying some of the portals of power as they wing their way to the festivities in the capital city.

I want to refer to several matters, but I agree with the intent of the resolution. I wish the honourable member well. I apologize for the fact that I was not able to attend the session at noon hour, but I had a previous commitment and was unable to be there. Anything that improves the mix of different energy sources in this province is to be welcomed, even though I understand propane is derived from natural gas, which obviously makes us dependent on Alberta.

I think there are a variety of arguments in its favour, whether we talk about economics, environment or other matters. However, I wish to call to the member's attention some concerns I have, not so much about propane-fuelled vehicles as about propane conversions in Ontario. I am sure he is no doubt aware of them.

I want to make several references to an

article by Nicholas Hunter in the May 18 issue of the Globe and Mail, entitled "Safety of Propane Conversions Causes Worry." Let me emphasize that this is not the first

article on this topic, but I want to refer to it because it is the most recent one.

The main source of the

article was a Michael Austin, who is chief instructor at a Toronto propane conversion school, where mechanics are taught how to convert vehicles from gasoline to propane. His basic allegation is that "fuel tanks on at least half the 22,000 propane-fuelled vehicles in the province of Ontario have been so shoddily installed that the lives of motorists are in danger." There are several quotes in the article.

I realize the ministry is doing an internal investigation of those allegations. I believe the investigation has not been completed, but I do want to put on the record some of the concerns expressed by Mr. Austin because I think they are serious and because he is in the field and has a certain credibility we cannot neglect.

He says, for example: "an Ontario government sticker put on vehicles to indicate the conversion has been done properly means only that the conversion company paid the government a $50 contractors fee and they got the stickers."

"He has recommended that special government inspection stations be set up across the province where mechanics could certify the propane installation has been done properly. Vehicles that pass inspection would receive a label that would enable them to fill up with propane at a service centre."

It is interesting to note that "the recommendation is similar to a proposal by the Toronto-based Insurers Advisory Organization of Canada, which calls for independent inspection centres throughout Ontario 'to certify that the original installation of the propane fuel system for each vehicle meets at least the minimum requirements.'" Apparently that organization represents 60 per cent of Canadian insurers and it has completed a report on the pros and cons of propane as an alternative fuel.

There are various other quotations in the piece. Mr. Frank Attard, fleet manager for Xerox Canada Inc., said he has heard conversions are done badly in a small percentage of garages and he is quoted as saying, "There are fly-by-nighters in the field and I would like to see the bad [operators] closed up." The

article says, "Conversion locations have been springing up with the increasing popularity of propane as an alternative fuel in cars and trucks." But the question is, are they being properly regulated and are the jobs being properly done?

Mr. Austin is quoted in the

article as estimating that conversions are being done in between 1,000 and 1,500 garages and conversion centres across the province and that there are about 5,000 people with licences that permit them to install propane tanks. "The conversions are getting sloppier and sloppier. It is totally disgusting." He cited the instance of a school bus in which the tank was mounted with insufficient clearance from the ground and pointed out that in a collision, liquid propane leaking on to the engine of the other vehicle would cause an instant inferno."

He also produced evidence of liquid lines done up with electrical tape so that "the line just hangs and lies on whatever it can." He also cited incidents of service centres filling propane tanks higher than the legal 80 per cent limit when the customers demanded it. He said, "Overfilling is very dangerous because with every 10 degrees of heat the fuel density increases 1.5 per cent."

Mr. Austin also charged in the

article that conversion shops are cutting prices, and in turn the quality of their work, just to get business. "They're cutting corners, working faster and doing sloppier work. The longer this situation continues the poorer and more dangerous conversions will become."

Because of this man's occupation and his familiarity with the situation, I think those charges are fairly serious. I do not think it will seriously detract from the intent of the resolution, however, I really think the ministry has a serious duty to investigate his allegations and to clean up the situation if those allegations prove to be true.

That is not the first time allegations of that sort have been made. In April 1982, in a memo, ministry engineers J. I. Whiting and Marcel Djivre defended the principle of the switch to propane. However, they said, "We both have reason to believe that, following conversion under the existing purchase orders, our vehicles will be likely to endanger us, or any other occupant." They are referring to government vehicles that are being converted.

Mr. Djivre noted in his report that the Ford Motor Co. of Canada Ltd. does not recommend converting to propane. He gave two instances from a case study the two men had done, one involving an AMC Eagle and the other a Ford Fairmont. In both cases he cited shoddy workmanship and the danger this meant for motorists across the province. He concluded, "The ministry's policy should be that where propane powered vehicles are used they should be factory-produced vehicles."

I note that the Minister of Transportation and Communications rides a propane-fuelled vehicle and it is a factory-produced vehicle.

I think the government's goal is to have something like 40,000 propane-powered vehicles on the road by 1985. I commend the government for its incentives to get people to try the propane option, but I really think it must protect the public interest in this question of conversion. It must have much stricter controls in the garages. We have to be assured that any car going on the road has a properly installed system.

I think the recommendation of the insurance people and Mr. Austin was an excellent one: to have independent centres set up in the province so people can bring their cars there and make sure the conversion was properly done. This would ensure these cars are in no way a threat or danger to any other motorist on the road. I think that recommendation is worth immediate implementation. It may cost a little money but if we save any lives and prevent any accidents, it will be an extremely worthwhile investment.

Propane obviously is going to be here for many years to come. The conversions will be here for many years to come as well. Why do we not ensure at the outset that every vehicle on the road has a properly installed conversion? I hope the member will also bring that to the attention of the minister, because I think as this becomes a more popular option the safety problems have to be overcome.

That is in no way meant to undermine the merits of the resolution. This is a prime concern of mine if we are going to move along this road. Beyond that, I want to say I will support the resolution.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I feel proud and privileged to be able to participate in the debate this afternoon in support of the resolution put forward by my colleague the member for Lakeshore. In so doing, I want to compliment him for the most orderly and effective way in which he presented his argument here this afternoon, It was most compelling and certainly very forceful.

4:20 p.m.

I must also commend my colleague for the initiatives he has taken in setting up, for the benefit of all interested members of the Legislature, the opportunity to meet at noon hour today to have a briefing, so to speak. on the whole concept and use of propane. I think he is to be applauded in this unique initiative, which afforded any who had preconceived views on the use of propane the opportunity to come forward and become informed in a very objective fashion on the merits of its use, particularly as a transportation fuel.

It was helpful at that time to assist the member in the predebate period. Representatives from the different ministries, such as Mr. Alter from the Ministry of Government Services, Messrs. Grzesik, Patterson and Yoneyama from the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, Mr. Olah from the Ministry of Energy and Dr. Soots from the Ministry of Transportation and Communications were very helpful. They were accompanied by Mr. Brown from Consumers' Gas, Mr. McLeod from Robin Hood Multifoods, and Frank Attard from Xerox, who represented the private sector.

There was a good cross-section of representation. It was a reflection of the interest being shown both by government and the private sector as to the merits of the use of propane fuel.

Again I commend the member for Lakeshore for his efforts in this regard. We realize his initiatives are simply a reflection of the broader initiatives being taken by this government and that have been in place for some period of time.

In the same manner that the sponsor of this resolution put forward his arguments in a very orderly six-point fashion, so too I would like to build on that presentation by dealing with three other points that I think will help to flesh out the whole issue.

In this regard, I want to touch on the record of the Ontario government and the initiatives it has taken in the field of dealing with alternative fuels, notwithstanding the comments made by the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) in his very partisan remarks, suggesting that this government has been derelict in showing initiatives in this field.

I want to touch for a few moments on cost comparisons and show how propane is cost efficient and effective.

Last, but not least, I want to touch on and give credit to both the private and public sectors, citing some specific instances where these initiatives have contributed in a very meaningful and significant way to the early successes of the use of propane in the transportation field.

Coming back to the first point I want to emphasize, the record of the Ontario government demonstrates that this province and this government stand second to none in the initiatives that have been taken in the field of alternative and renewable energy programs and the development of policy in this regard.

I always have to admire the minister who represents that ministry. He himself is a personification of the ministry he represents. It is hard to keep up with our Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch) in his capacity of Minister of Energy and the many different directions in which he is taking this government on its broadening policy program of alternative and renewable energy programs.

I can only make reference to a few; even then I would not have touched on all of them. We have energy from waste and biomass; solar energy development programs; alternative transportation fuels, which is what we are about here today, along with remote power systems; and one of the areas in which I happen to have a particular preference, the area of hydrogen.

I have had some small and modest part to play, perhaps, in this government developing a meaningful research and development component in the field of the potential for hydrogen energy and its use in the transportation field. We now have in place the Institute for Hydrogen Systems, which is established as a research subsidiary of the University of Toronto. I think we are going to see some remarkable developments come out of their activities in the coming months and years.

But as stated and conceded by the sponsor of this resolution, hydrogen is probably the energy of the future as far as its practical use is concerned while propane not only is proven but is practical now because a system has been developed that makes it usable in today's transportation vehicles. I think propane will continue to be with us even after we have achieved the long-range objectives of bringing the use of hydrogen to its full potential.

This government stands second to none in these initiatives. That is why, while propane is simply an integral part of that overall program, it is a similar type of initiative that has to be applauded and is being looked at from all parts of the world. So this province has no apologies to make for the direction and programming that we have developed with regard to the use of alternative and renewable fuels.

With regard to propane specifically, the cost comparisons show without question the cost- effectiveness of using propane as compared to gasoline. It is shown that gasoline today is averaging around 45 to 48 cents per litre while propane is costing out at approximately 25 cents per litre; but, recognizing the BTU efficiency of propane is perhaps somewhat less than that of gasoline, you could cost out propane on a direct comparative basis with gasoline at about 31 cents per litre. So we definitely have a significant cost saving, and this has been proven in the fleet testing that has been done in co-operation with the private sector by a number of companies that have been involved.

Such organizations as Bell Canada, Work Wear Corp. of Canada Ltd. and Simpson-Sears Ltd. have all been involved, along with other corporations that use a large fleet of vehicles. In fact, it has been demonstrated and shown clearly in the report published by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications that there are cost savings to be realized in the use of propane.

The sponsor will want to respond to the safety feature on the basis of what the member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis) had to say, and I am sure he will allay that member's fears and reservations in responding to the recent articles in the newspaper, which I think are answerable. He can put the matter back in its proper perspective.

With regard to the initiatives of the private sector, again while I have simply mentioned the names of a few companies, I had wanted to go in some depth into the successes they have had that are published in Drive Propane:

Summary of Fleet Demonstration Results Report, which came from the ministry in March 1982. I commend it for bedside reading to all members of the House, because it does clearly demonstrate that propane is a success and is here to stay. I commend the member for his initiative, and I am sure all members of not only this party but the House as a whole are supportive of this very progressive resolution.

4:30 p.m.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join this debate and to compliment the member for Lakeshore for presenting this resolution and also for the presentation and the luncheon he provided just an hour or so ago.

I think it is absolutely necessary that we look at alternative fuels. Just to give members a bit of the cost, there are about four million vehicles in Ontario and they consume about $2.2 billion worth of fuel per year. Most of that is imported into this province, so there is a tremendous opportunity to save our balance of payments as far as both the province and the country are concerned. To give an example of the cost of fuel in Ontario: for every $1 increase in the cost of a barrel of crude oil, $100 million is diverted from our provincial economy.

We need alternative fuels for economic reasons, strategic reasons and health reasons. To outline the economic reasons, everyo