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

May 1, 1980

31st Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

ESTIMATES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

NEW AGENCY POLICIES

HOSPITAL FIRE

INCO EMISSIONS

AID TO CHRYSLER

USE OF FIREARMS BY POLICE

ORAL QUESTIONS

INCO EMISSIONS

SEATON DEVELOPMENT

AID TO CHRYSLER

ASBESTOS HAZARDS

SALE OF MACMILLAN COMPANY

LICENSING OF PRIVATE CAMPGROUNDS

GENERAL MOTORS LAYOFF

RELEASE ON LOOSENED WARRANT

WESTINGHOUSE CANADA

LEGAL AID FOR OMB HEARING

INQUEST ON FIREFIGHTERS’ DEATHS

BOARD OF OPHTHALMIC DISPENSERS

YOUTH ASSISTING YOUTH

VACANT LAND CONDOMINIUMS

CONFEDERATION DEBATE

PETITION

MANITOBA LEGISLATURE PROCEEDINGS

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

MONTREAL TRUST COMPANY OF CANADA ACT

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

CONFEDERATION DEBATE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

DISASTER RELIEF FUND

DENTAL CARE PROGRAM

DISASTER RELIEF FUND

DENTAL CARE PROGRAM

ROYAL ASSENT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

The House met at 2:02 p.m.

Prayers.

ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I have a message from the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor signed by her own hand.

Mr. Speaker: Pauline M. McGibbon, the Lieutenant Governor, transmits estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1981, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly, Toronto, May 1, 1980.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

NEW AGENCY POLICIES

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table today for the information of members two policies which will shortly be published in the government’s Manual of Administration. These policies formalize the various measures outlined in the second report of the agencies review committee, which was tabled in the Legislature on March 25, 1980, by my colleague, the chairman of the committee, the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Pope).

The first of the policies sets out a process to be followed by ministries when establishing new agencies. It provides for Management Board of Cabinet and cabinet review and approval of such matters as the need for a new agency, or the possibility of modifying an existing agency, and the terms of reference.

Guidelines are also included that will assist in the development of necessary legislation and in the determination of the number of members to be appointed to the agency. Other measures incorporated into the policy include conflict of interest guidelines for government appointees. The second policy reiterates the government’s intention to develop a framework and process to assist ministers to undertake the required sunset reviews of advisory agencies.

The first round of reviews is to be completed by March 1982, in accordance with the order in council tabled with the second report. The policy provides that an appropriate review process be developed by March 1981, to enable ministers to complete their first round of reviews within the time limit that has been established.

HOSPITAL FIRE

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked by the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) to inform the House that there was a major fire at St. Joseph’s Hospital in Hamilton this morning. There was considerable smoke damage and it became necessary to evacuate the hospital. All patients and staff have now been safely moved and I understand the fire has been brought under control.

The Hamilton area hospital emergency plan was activated immediately and patients have been transferred to neighbouring hospitals. The Minister of Health is on the scene in Hamilton at the moment and will have a further report for the House when he returns.

INCO EMISSIONS

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I believe the people of Ontario and the honourable members are well aware of my commitment to the battle against acid rain, in which Ontario has consistently led this continent. Reduction of the emissions that contribute to acid rain is one of my major objectives, and my ministry has been preparing necessary measures for some time.

Today I wish to advise the members of the first of several planned steps aimed at reducing acid rain. My ministry is introducing new control measures that will substantially reduce the volume of SO 2 emissions from the smelting operations of Inco Limited at Sudbury.

The proposed control order limits total emissions from the Inco smelter complex to an average of 2,500 short tons per working day. This will consist of a combination of stack and ground-level emissions. Ground-level emissions can vary from 50 to 200 tons on a given day. The company will also be required to have in place the facilities necessary to reduce total emissions, both stack and ground-level, to 1,950 short tons per working day, effective on or before December 31, 1982.

In addition, and of great importance, the order further requires Inco to provide my ministry, by the end of 1981, with an assessment of the technical options necessary to reduce emissions of SO 2 to the lowest possible level. Inco officials have told me their concerns that any reduction in the emissions limit below the daily average of 3,000 tons will have serious effects on the company’s operations and drastically curtail its ability to increase production. The second stage, which will limit total emissions to an average of 1,950 tons per day, is considered to be a lid on Inco’s production capacity and I recognize this as a serious factor.

I am well aware that the impact of these restrictions does place a significant burden on Inco Limited and potentially upon the economy of this province. The proposed new levels would not permit the company to expand its operations beyond the existing moderate level of world demand. These negative economic effects could be offset by technological improvements.

While I understand the severe restraints that are being placed on Inco, I fully believe the environmental considerations are paramount and do constitute the clearly overriding factor. The combined orders will provide a strong incentive to Inco to apply its considerable resources to develop the necessary technology to reduce emissions. I believe the company can, should and will meet this challenge.

I must emphasize that this proposed control program has been under consideration and in preparation by my ministry for some time as a part of Ontario’s comprehensive acid-rain program. On January 18, I discussed our action plan to reduce emissions throughout Ontario with the Honourable John Fraser, the previous federal Minister of the Environment, and with the Honourable Douglas Costle, the administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Our discussions centred on Inco Limited. As part of our ongoing co-operative efforts on acid rain, we have kept officials of Environment Canada advised of our intentions concerning Inco and other emitters for some months now.

2:10 p.m.

On April 21, I resumed discussions with the new federal minister. At our meeting I outlined our proposed control program to Mr. Roberts. At the same time I stressed to him it was vital that the federal government tackle head on the American inaction against acid rain. With his hand now strengthened by Ontario’s lead, I look to my federal colleague to make effective use of these new controls on Inco in his efforts to obtain an international agreement.

We have re-evaluated the 1978 control program based on the proven need to provide greater controls on SO 2 emissions. Therefore, we are proceeding with measures to establish a drastically lower ceiling on Inco emissions. As soon as the control order takes effect, it will provide for further substantial reductions by the end of 1982.

I have notified Inco Limited of our intention to issue a new control order under the Environmental Protection Act. Consistent with my policy, the draft control order will be submitted to public scrutiny and comment by the public. Following the public meeting we will prepare a notice of intent of a new control order and serve this on Inco. The act then provides a 15-day period during which the company may appeal. If there is no appeal, I would anticipate the order to take effect by July 1 of this year.

Here are the other major thrusts of the new control order: emissions from the iron-ore recovery plant shall not exceed an average of 250 short tons per working day. This average will be computed quarterly over a 12-month production period.

By December 31, 1980, the company shall submit a report detailing the facilities and the implementation

schedule necessary to limit SO 2 , emissions from the Copper Cliff smelter to 1,950 short tons per working day averaged over a calendar year. These facilities are to be in place by December 31, 1982. The report must include information on all factors involved, including capital investment, operating costs, a feasibility assessment of the technical options, and an analysis of the environmental and socio-economic implications.

The control order continues the existing program designed to bring all low-level emissions from the company’s nickel refinery into compliance with provincial standards as set out in the Environmental Protection Act. The company must complete installation of the necessary facilities and have these in operation by December 31, 1982.

In addition to these major requirements in the control order, we are also issuing a provincial officer’s requirement under the Environmental Protection Act. This directs the company to conduct studies and to report its findings by December 1981 on methods necessary to further reduce SO 2 emissions from the Copper Cliff complex to the lowest levels possible. This report is to include analysis of the economic and feasibility factors outlined previously. I am also ordering the company to report on the various processes and testing programs that it has undertaken to date in its efforts to reduce emission levels.

Another major part of our program is the establishment of an Ontario-Canada task force to investigate all air-pollution-abatement technical options for both Inco Limited and Falconbridge Nickel Mines Limited in Sudbury. The working committee of this joint task force will include senior representatives of my ministry, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and the federal departments of the Environment and of Energy, Mines and Resources. In addition, nongovernmental representatives will be on the committee.

I believe this to be a new departure, one that is a continuation of my program to include the public at large as part of our team approach. Quebec, which chairs the federal-provincial control strategies group on acid rain, may also nominate a member.

This task force will examine all technical alternatives for further abatement, including the financial impacts of abatement on the Sudbury smelting companies, the cost-efficient mixes of abatement technologies to achieve specific emission reductions, and comparison of the environmental and other benefits of abatement and control measures.

I wish to emphasize that we are taking a major step in reducing Inco’s emissions, which have already decreased under government programs by more than 40 per cent since 1969. The proposed program will result in a further reduction of 46 per cent.

I deeply regret, however, that there has not been a comparable decrease in emissions from the nonferrous smelting industry in the United States, which accounts for 2.8 million tons per year. This reflects the lack of action in the US smelting industry. I am similarly concerned by the lack of progress in establishing control standards on US power generating plants, which account for 18.6 million tons per year compared with one half million tons per year generated by Ontario coal-fired plants. I find this record unacceptable.

I have said before in this assembly, and I believe it should be repeated at this time, that the long-range transport of pollutants is an international problem for which all jurisdictions share some responsibility. Both Canadian and US sources must be controlled if Ontario’s threatened areas are to be protected. Ontario is prepared to enforce necessary controls in concert with control measures in other jurisdictions. As I have said, we are prepared to act singly and in advance of other jurisdictions, but Ontario cannot act alone and solve Ontario’s acid-rain problems.

Ontario will continue to set an example and to lead in responding to the threat of acid rain, but we now expect a positive response from our US neighbours; in fact, we must have this response. Without it, we are going to lose the fight against acid rain. The onus for stimulating US response clearly rests with my colleague, the federal Minister of the Environment, and I look forward to his progress in his negotiations with Washington.

Ontario’s action program is well under way and our fight against acid rain goes on each day. Given support and action from those who also have a great deal at stake, I know that we in Ontario will save our lands, our rivers and our lakes for the future.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: In regard to governing by headline such as we have just heard,

section 26(

c) of the standing orders says, “After any policy statement the minister shall table a compendium of background information.” I wonder if there is such a background of information available in regard to this statement, including the poll taken by Decima Research Limited last year, to the tune of $56,000, entitled Attitudes Towards Environmental Matters. Is there a compendium of information? Will that and the poll be tabled?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

AID TO CHRYSLER

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I was going to wait until the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) was here, hoping that he would be here, but since he is not, I want to raise it before question period starts.

Over the last couple of months, our party has been asking a series of questions on aid to Chrysler Corporation, and we have received vague answers, to say the least, from the government. Yet yesterday and the day before there were all sorts of statements that were made by the Minister of Industry and Tourism to the press, giving specific answers to specific questions.

I would just like to ask the Speaker if, when the Legislature is in session, it would not make more sense for the government to answer questions in the House and report to members of the Legislature rather than giving statements though the press. There are five members here from Essex county. There are 125 members who are concerned about what’s going on in the automobile industry and those questions should be answered in the House, not by statements outside the House just to the press.

Mr. Speaker: I am not aware of the statements to which the honourable member refers and I would like to hear what the Minister of Industry and Tourism has to say in response to your alleged point of privilege.

2:20 p.m.

USE OF FIREARMS BY POLICE

Mrs. Campbell: I regret the absence of the Solicitor General (Mr. McMurtry), Mr. Speaker, but feel my point of personal privilege must be raised as early as possible in these proceedings.

On April 29 of this year the leader of the New Democratic Party addressed a question to the Solicitor General in which he said: “Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the suspect in the case last fall was involved in a case concerning property damage and the suspect in this particular case, Luc Savard, was involved in a domestic dispute, would the Solicitor General make it very clear to the authorities in Quebec that we in this province do not think that suspects in such cases should be shot at with firearms...” I will leave the rest out.

The response of the Solicitor General was: “Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the involvement of the police in domestic disputes, I think the member for St. George might have a different view as to the extent to which police should get involved.”

Mr. Speaker, I have deplored violence wherever I have seen it, whether in the hockey arena, on the highway or in the home. I have never, in any of those cases, advocated the use of firearms and if the Solicitor General was speaking lightly on this occasion, I deplore his levity.

ORAL QUESTIONS

INCO EMISSIONS

Mr. S. Smith: I would like to question the Minister of the Environment with regard to the statement he has made on Inco.

Would the minister not agree that his statement, in fact, has declared that Inco can continue at the level of emission that is at present going on there -- not the present allowable limit of 3,600 but the present level that is going on day to day? Basically, the minister is saying there need be no change in that for the next couple of years and that by 1982 it would be reduced to 1,950 tons as the allowable limit.

How does he reconcile that with the fact that five years ago Inco offered his ministry a plan to reduce emissions to 1,500 tons per day at a proposed cost then of $300 million? How does he reconcile the alleged strength of today’s statement with the fact that five years ago his ministry was offered a plan by Inco to reduce much lower than the level the minister himself is now asking for by the end of 1982?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I think several things should be made known on this. First of all, that offer was never made to the ministry. It was alleged to have been made but wasn’t. More particularly, if we are going to reach the 1,950-ton level by 1982, it will require very positive action, starting right now.

The technology to reach that level has not been proved commercially. Therefore, the study that will be required for this year will outline all of those complications, those implications of applying new technology, but whether that technology exists or not, they must come to those levels in 1982. I am sure the company can meet that challenge one way or the other. To reach that level requires action this month by that company to reach the level we are proposing. No inaction is possible for the company in that regard.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since the present levels of emission are no greater for the next two years than the limit proposed by the minister, there is obviously going to be no change. Since the minister says there was no such plan in 1975, with your indulgence I will read just three lines from the select committee report on this matter:

“In 1975 Inco developed and discussed with ministry officials a plan to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions to 1,500 tons per day by December 1979 at a cost of about $300 million. Ministry officials decided at that time to leave Inco with a 750-ton-a-day target and not accept that particular offer of the company.” That is from the report of the committee.

I simply ask the minister again if what the minister has now done is bring in a level somewhat higher than that which Inco itself offered five years ago. Furthermore, may I ask whether, if Inco appeals this order, the appeal will be heard in public and not just in a cozy meeting with ministry officials?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I guess the Leader of the Opposition just plain doesn’t understand what an appeal process is. There is never an in-closet, if you will, appeal process. It is before the Environmental Appeal Board with their recommendations made public. Nothing could be more formal or more open than that.

Mr. S. Smith: I’m talking about the hearing, not the recommendation. I’m talking about the hearing.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I am talking about the hearing. It will be public.

Mr. S. Smith: It won’t be.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I said it would be public. That is exactly what I said and if the honourable member would just stop talking long enough to listen he would have heard that point. Every appeal to the Environmental Appeal Board is in public and their recommendations are made public. Nothing could be clearer than that.

The honourable member says there will be no reductions. Let me read the levels for him. The levels in January were 2,584 tons per day; in February, 2,623, and in March, 2,523. If one superimposes those levels on a company that was hoping to increase its production significantly in these coming months, something which is also very important to this province, then I tell the honourable member that is a real restriction. If there is any doubt about that part, it is absolutely incorrect. That is a very stringent requirement of that company and it has a rather long-term effect. We should not underestimate the importance of these controls today.

The last point I would make is that the offer talked about in 1975 was firmly rejected by the company. It was never accepted as part of their program because it was based on a technology which had not been proved.

Mr. Mattel: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question: Today we checked with Environment Canada and by use of a pyrrhotite rejection, flash smelting and byproduct sulphuric acid plant, Inco could reduce its emissions to 1,000 tons a day by the end of 1985.

Is the minister prepared to contact Environment Canada, obtain those documents, present them to the House and give an analysis from his staff as to whether or not the Environment Canada studies are factual? Would that then necessitate the type of study he is indicating in the rest of his document?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Exactly, Mr. Speaker. I would like to reread very briefly: “The working committee of this joint task force will include senior representatives from my ministry, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and the federal departments of Environment and of Energy, Mines and Resources.” That is a public task force which will hold hearings to understand once and for all -- and I think this is very important, Mr. Speaker -- understand and put to the world at large all the various studies, all of these various facts so that we will then not engage in competing, one study versus another, one proposal versus another.

2:30 p.m.

We will have a very independent board, including federal government representatives from a jurisdiction outside Ontario, with public people on that board, to come to a final conclusion of what is possible. I welcome the member’s participation in that process.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, how can the minister say this is going to strengthen Mr. Roberts’s hands with Washington? Does he suppose that Washington is not aware of the Environment Canada study that shows off-the-shelf technology is now available to reduce the tonnage to 1,000 tons per day?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, there is no proved commercial system yet in operation -- that’s point one. Second, while Ontario is reducing its emissions, one after another in the United States they are increasing their emissions. They are going up while we are coming down. They must follow our lead.

SEATON DEVELOPMENT

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Housing the other day I directed a question, I guess to the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch), on the matter of Seaton. Since the Minister of Housing is here, perhaps he might care to answer the question today.

Basically, the question concerned the minister’s statement on March 24 that he was delaying the construction of Seaton because of prevailing economic conditions, describing his decision as “knowing when to cut your losses and not being foolish enough to extend them.” Could the minister explain why the Assistant Deputy Minister of Housing has told Durham regional council that housing construction was merely delayed by two years and will start in 1984?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I think if one reads the

article in the Toronto Star of Saturday, it clearly indicated that the assistant deputy minister, who is also the chief executive officer for the Ontario Land Corporation, answered clearly that we were looking at a five-year cycle to put it back on stream. The five-year cycle they were working on would bring it into about 1984. There was no indication by the assistant deputy minister that we would commence construction in 1984.

Mr. S. Smith: Perhaps the minister would care to write to the Toronto Star and complain about the article. The

article itself says, “Target date for start of its construction is now 1984, Robert McDonald, Assistant Deputy Minister of Housing, told Durham planning committee this week.” Unless he wishes to correct the record, I have to assume that’s what the assistant deputy minister said. Therefore, what I would like to know is how much money is the government or any agency of the government spending on the North Pickering/Seaton project this year in addition to the money it has already spent, and what is that money being spent for?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I don’t take the Toronto Star as being the record of this House nor of statements by the government. They can quote as they wish; I am not going to find fault with them. That is the reporter’s responsibility, to print whatever he or she believes he or she has been told.

The fact is we are very clear that 1984 was a possibility date. When the assistant deputy minister was asked if it could come on stream in an earlier period, he said it would be a five-year cycle, which brings it to about 1984. It is not the intention of this government or this ministry to commence the project in 1984. I think I made that very clear in this House back on March 24 when I made the statement to this House. We indicated too at that time that our costs over the next short period, in continuing to process the amendments to the official plan to accommodate the Seaton community sometimes in the future, will likely run us in the current year about $400,000.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I thought I made it very clear on March 24 that we did not have a commencement date. We indicated very clearly it was being put on the back burner; we were not commencing it because of economic conditions and market conditions.

I am certainly not going to stand here in the year 1980 and try to predict what the market conditions will be in 1983, 1984, 1985 or 1986. When conditions turn around -- and I said that very clearly in the statement of March 24 -- when economic conditions change and the market warrants the type of construction, we will then try to commence it.

In the meantime, we will be working with the region and the local government in trying to put the official plan in place to accommodate a Seaton if and when it is built.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Might I ask the minister to respond to my other question about how much money is being spent on Seaton this year and what it is being spent for?

Might I also ask him whether he is not somewhat alarmed, after he tells this House that we’re not going ahead with Seaton, and in view of a consultant’s report indicating that the region of Durham has enough serviced residential land apart from Seaton for the next 14 years and serviced industrial land for the next 50 years, that his bureaucrats seem determined to push this thing forward and to proceed, mentioning target dates to the region and to the press? Is he going to do something about that to make it perfectly clear that we’re not going to waste any more money than has already been lost there?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I’ll make it very clear: My statement of March 24 was that of this ministry and the government, and clearly indicated the position. I do not take, as I said earlier today, the Star report as being the position of the government. Mr. McDonald reports through this ministry to this House, that’s correct. Mr. McDonald had discussions with them and very clearly indicated in a positive way. To the question, “What is the earliest date that Seaton could possibly come on stream?” he said, “The earliest date is 1984.”

That is not to indicate that was the government’s intention. I think the question asked and the answer given are very explicit. Frankly, I have said that the project will come on stream when the economic conditions in this area justify that kind of advancement in the Pickering project.

I indicated earlier in my answer that our expenditures this year will be in the range of about $400,000 on legal fees and other things required in bringing forward the official planned amendments to accommodate Seaton’s development.

AID TO CHRYSLER

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Industry and Tourism relating to the future of the automobile industry and the negotiations with Chrysler Canada Limited. Will the minister say, now that Chrysler Canada has announced it will have no V-6 engine production in Windsor, what steps the government is taking to ensure that Chrysler’s new operations in Canada will give us a fair share of manufacturing jobs in the parts sector as well as assembly?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I can only say at this time that we’re doing a great deal, as is evidenced by the fact that we haven’t been able to strike a deal at the present time.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: In view of the fact that, with the pulling-out of the engine plant in Windsor, not only are 4,000 or 5,000 potential jobs threatened but Chrysler is only going to have a small trim operation and a spring plant in Canada and no other production of parts at all, can the minister say whether Ontario has been trying to get some other engine plant such as a four-cylinder engine plant from Chrysler here in Canada, or is the minister simply going to allow the production of parts by Chrysler Canada to come to a virtual end in this country, leaving only an assembly-line operation?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I want to assure the leader of the third party that these negotiations have been carrying on well into the night and early morning, as late as 2.30 a.m. today. Those negotiations include all the items we’ve discussed in this House for very many months.

With regard to the engine plant, may I say with respect that any understanding, here or elsewhere, that effectively the closure of that engine plant was related directly to the negotiations that are going on, is not accurate. The decision to close that engine plant was not a decision made as a function of the negotiations that are carrying on now. It wasn’t on the table in a serious way at the serious stages of this negotiation.

Chrysler, in closing that engine plant, is trying to address its short-term cash problems. In order to keep that plant, which is currently employing 350 people, as part of their system, would mean they would be retooling it for the next two years, laying out several hundreds of millions of dollars to retool it for production in 1983.

Chrysler Corporation, as a result of the conditions laid down by the Chrysler Loan Guarantee Board, has a problem with cash flow over the next couple of years. Therefore, they took the decision that they could not afford to spend $200 million, $300 million or $400 million to retool that plant over the next few years because they didn’t have the cash available. They took the decision not to worry about the engines now, but to worry about engines if they were in business in 1983, and buy them. The decision they made was essentially related to their current cash position.

2:40 p.m.

The only extent to which that can be tied to our current negotiations is if someone were to suggest seriously that the governments of Canada should pay hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars in upfront grants to alter that decision. Quite frankly, that is not something I think this assembly would suggest this government should do.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, in the minister’s negotiations, is he asking for a guarantee of so many employees, or is he asking for a guarantee of a percentage of the total employee hours in both the United States and Canada? Would it not be better to ask for the second type of guarantee since no one knows how many cars they are going to sell? If there were so many cars sold, at least we would have the percentage we should have under the auto pact.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned, the interest of this government is in making available a certain amount of money in exchange for a certain number of jobs. As I stated in this House before, and I think the member’s party and the New Democratic Party has it stated in this House too, it has to be a certain number of jobs.

When we get into a situation in which we are supporting a company in the large way we are considering supporting it, and the company has the still uncertain future we are talking about, we do not have the sort of guarantees to fall back on that we have when we are dealing with other automobile manufacturers. Therefore, it is our position that everything that is done must relate to cold, hard job figures. That’s where we are right now.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister whether he realizes that by retooling the van plant and closing down the engine plant, if the parent corporation does go bankrupt in the next few years, we will be left with assembly operations in Ontario that will mean nothing,

whereas if the engine plant is retooled and the parent corporation goes bankrupt, we will be left with an engine plant that is viable, one that will produce engines and continue to provide jobs?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, of course we are aware of that. The question becomes one of what this government ought to do to ensure that engine plant stays open.

I have indicated the sole thing we can do with a company whose urgent problem is a current cash flow is to give them millions and millions of dollars of upfront grants to make the decision to leave that engine plant open a viable one. I do not think we should neglect the fact that the Chrysler corporation is deciding that it need not worry about having engines in 1983 if it does not get through the next short period of time. Therefore, its major concern is its cash-flow position over the next period of time.

I say to the member I am distressed at the loss of that engine plant. It will have the consequences the member refers to. All that reinforces the fact that we must get the kind of job guarantees I am insisting upon before we consider participation in this operation.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister whether officials of his ministry have checked out the situation to see if this decision not to retool the engine plant, made in the United States by the parent company of Chrysler Canada, is in any way a contravention of the auto pact. If it is, what action does the minister plan to take on this matter?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Two things, Mr. Speaker: First, the member raises a point that has been forgotten in some of these discussions. That is, presuming that Chrysler Corporation, the parent company, does survive by virtue of its arrangements with the loan board, and presuming it would still want to serve the Canadian market -- which is a very important and strong market for the company -- it would have to continue to provide employment here pursuant to the auto pact requirements.

I have had no indication from Ottawa that there is any intention to relieve Chrysler of its auto pact requirements. So when we talk about the net new jobs to be gained by the participation of this government and the federal government, we must look at the numbers of jobs that are in excess of the number of jobs that the auto pact would require be in there if Chrysler is to continue in any form whatsoever.

Second, the company could not close that operation unless it was in compliance with the auto pact. Having raised that question with Ottawa, I am informed by Ottawa that the company still is complying with the pact.

I should also indicate to the honourable member that I have just returned from giving a speech to the Automotive Parts Manufacturers Association, where I indicated quite firmly and publicly that this government insists the figures that traditionally have been held confidential between the car companies and the federal government regarding compliance with the auto pact should now be made public so that this government, this assembly and the people of Ontario can assess for themselves the terms of compliance of the Big Three with the auto pact.

ASBESTOS HAZARDS

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question, of the Minister of Labour, arising out of the list of companies that was tabled in the Legislature last week, companies where workers have suffered occupational disease because of exposure to asbestos. Can the minister tell me why, when workers in more than 80 companies across the province have suffered from asbestos exposure and have had Workmen’s Compensation Board claims arising therefrom, his ministry is still establishing a registry for workers at only one company, namely Johns-Manville Canada Incorporated?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member recalls that I asked my staff to look into the possibility and value of a nominal roll in any other industry. I might tell him, and I am sure he knows very well, that all workers who are exposed to asbestos regularly attend the chest survey and pulmonary function testing routine either on a biannual or annual basis. So workers who are exposed to asbestos do attend an X-ray checkup unit, and that involves an X-ray and pulmonary function testing on an annual or biannual basis. They are being followed now.

What the member is talking about in a nominal roll is going back to some date in the past and gathering a list from the past. I am telling him that I have asked the staff to look into that to see if it is feasible and if it would accomplish anything that we all want to accomplish. It is being looked into.

Mr. Cassidy: Can the minister explain why he says his ministry now is looking into the possibility of establishing a registry and tracing workers who have been exposed to asbestos when almost three years ago his predecessor stated in a letter to somebody in the Canadian Chemical Workers Union at Johns-Manville that the occupational health branch of the ministry “will develop an asbestos register on current and former workers,” clearly indicating that the registry would cover workers who have been exposed across the province and not just at one company?

Will the minister undertake now to implement the promise that was made by his predecessor almost three years ago and have a registry for tracing workers who have been exposed to asbestos from any company, rather than just the one?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I do not want to commit myself to something I have not reviewed yet. It may be that someone else has said something, but what I am saying to the member is that I have asked staff to look into it and give me some advice on it. I think that is the only rational way I can approach it. I am not trying to be obstructionist. I am simply trying to be logical.

Mr. Ziemba: Mr. Speaker, since there is a great concern about the exposure limits of asbestos, and since there is now no legal limit to asbestos, when can we have that list of hazardous substances which was supposed to accompany Bill 70 last fall?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, at the estimates last year we tabled our targets in terms of substances on an annual basis for the next two or three years. As I am sure he also knows, we have already gazetted certain substances, one of which is asbestos, and we now are in the process of considering a change in the occupational standard for asbestos.

I might tell the member it is clear that it is not an easy problem. As he knows, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health made recommendations in 1975 and 1976 that still have not resulted in change. So it is not an easy problem, and we are not a province that is behind anybody else in North America in this matter. We are reviewing it now with a view to a change.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Cassidy: It seems the minister is telling the House that a promise made by a former minister is no longer a promise when that minister is moved to another ministry. Under the Conservatives of this province, a promise is not a promise if there is a change of ministry. It is a way of evading promises made in the past.

Is that what the minister is saying, or will he now undertake to implement the promise made by his predecessor and start an effective program of tracing workers who have been exposed to asbestos in every work place in Ontario, rather than doing it in just one or two companies?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I have already indicated many of the measures that are already under way. I might also indicate that there already is a roll for some 1,000 insulation workers. As the honourable member knows, we also have a roll for some miners up north. I have asked the staff to look into whether it is feasible to do anything else in any other area.

SALE OF MACMILLAN COMPANY

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I have an interim response to the question of the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Cassidy) on April 25 regarding the merger of Gage Publishing Limited and Macmillan Company of Canada Limited, an operating division of Maclean-Hunter Limited.

I share the member’s view that the publishing program of Macmillan of Canada has been important to Canadians and that the effects of the announced merger on that publishing activity need to be clearly understood.

Earlier this week I met with representatives of the Writers Union of Canada and the Association of Canadian Publishers to discuss the questions they have raised concerning the merger. This morning I met with the chairman of the Maclean-Hunter board of directors and the president of Macmillan. I have also contacted both the federal Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Mr. Herb Gray, and the Minister of Communications, Mr. Francis Fox, concerning this transaction. I have arranged to meet with the president of Gage next week.

I have been told that Ron Besse of Gage has called a press conference for tomorrow, and it is to be hoped he will shed new and additional light on Gage’s plan for Macmillan. Once these meetings are completed, and after the Foreign Investment Review Agency has indicated whether there is any reason for it to be involved in reviewing this transaction, I will provide a full and further response to the member’s question.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, can the minister assure the House that, should the government not be satisfied that Macmillan’s distinguished trade publishing activities will be maintained under the proposed new owners, the government will be prepared to participate if there is another bidder who is prepared to maintain Macmillan’s trade publishing activities?

Specifically, will the minister assure the House that, if the offer by Fitzhenry and Whiteside Limited is renewed and it is prepared, as it indicated earlier, to carry on Macmillan’s distinguished activities, Ontario will be prepared to share in the financing if that participation is necessary?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I can only answer that in a general way. We are as concerned as anyone that there be a strong publishing industry in Canada. However, I would not like to respond more specifically to any questions at this moment, because there are a whole range of possibilities under consideration. I wish to hold that reply until perhaps next week or the week after to look at more facts.

LICENSING OF PRIVATE CAMPGROUNDS

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Industry and Tourism: Is the minister aware of the confusion that now exists for both municipalities and campgrounds as a result of his announcement one year ago regarding the withdrawal of his ministry from the licensing of private campgrounds in southern Ontario? Is he aware that, because all municipalities have different bylaws or no bylaws at all for licensing campgrounds, there are currently no guidelines available that would provide uniformity in licensing throughout the province?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the misunderstanding of the honourable member. I think what the people out there have failed to grasp is that our licence added nothing to either standardization or supervision of the campgrounds in this province. It was merely an indication from this ministry that the campground owner had complied with the requirements of a whole host of other ministries and local authorities. It added nothing, except one more layer of red tape and another fee for the campground owner to pay.

It was our hope that we had reduced the regulatory process and reduced the cost to campground owners of having to go to one more level after they got all the necessary approvals. In other words, we could not turn down an applicant for a campground licence if he or she had received all the other approvals. It was our desire to remove that red tape that caused us to do this.

I am aware there is a lot of misunderstanding out there. I am also aware that many municipalities now have moved into a field which they were always free to move into, and many had moved into, in terms of laying down licensing fees and new rules and regulations. That is causing some concern.

I seek the honourable member’s advice on this. If our returning to the field would moderate that situation, I would be happy to consider it. But I see no instance in which municipalities, having become aware of the power they have always had, would withdraw if we re-entered the field.

Mr. Eakins: I am not suggesting the ministry return to the field. But the confusion on this issue is the result of two factors. First, the Municipal Act currently is being studied to clarify the sections dealing with campgrounds. Second, guidelines currently are being drafted by the Ministry of Housing to assist municipalities in the evaluation of campgrounds. Why would the minister not have waited until these two considerations had been established before getting out of the licensing?

Then his ministry might at least have remained as a guiding force for both the municipalities and the campgrounds, rather than creating this period of uncertainty. I would ask the minister, what liaison will his ministry be playing in this period of transition?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Our field staff are dealing directly with that problem to try to provide advice and assistance, as they always had done, to the campground owners throughout the province to help them through this period. We are also working with the other ministries to ensure that the rules and regulations brought along through standardization are realistic for the sake of the campground owners.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, since many small municipalities in Ontario do not have the resources which are necessary to prepare themselves to issue these licences or to prepare bylaws, would his ministry be willing to prepare a draft bylaw that could be sent to all the municipalities which might request such a bylaw?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs is working on that specific project right now with our guidance and assistance.

GENERAL MOTORS LAYOFF

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry and Tourism. It concerns the announcement by General Motors that 750 employees in its St. Catharines plant will be laid off indefinitely.

I would ask the minister whether he is aware that this layoff, following one of 300 or so last fall, is a result of even lower than anticipated sales of V-8 engines. Does he know that GM has left St. Catharines as the only GM plant in North America producing this dying breed of engines? In its projection for employment it anticipated that half the engine employees would continue to be producing these V-8s. In the light of this dying position of that sector of the engine plant in St. Catharines, would the minister meet immediately with GM to insist that some of the future North American production of small engines, in addition to the V-6, be switched to the St. Catharines engine plant?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, may I say that the member’s information is not quite accurate. First, this is not the only GM plant in North America making V-8 engines. There are two other plants in North America making V-8 engines. Second, there is obviously some sort of market left for V-8 engines; I don’t know quite where it is, or who is buying them, but GM --

Mr. Swart: But it is much lower than for the smaller engines.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: There is no question about it. But in terms of what we have seen other companies do in other situations, it is in a relatively better position. GM had, as an alternative, consolidating all V-8 production into one plant in the United States or in Canada. They have chosen instead to keep all of their V-8 plants operating, admittedly at reduced capacity.

3 p.m.

Lost among my Chrysler material is a copy of the news release GM issued this morning confirming that St. Catharines was the subject of a $250-million new investment program to shift the construction of some of its works there that now are becoming outdated, into front-end transmission and other works. That is $250 million worth of new light vehicles going into the St. Catharines operation, which I think is a sign of GM’s continued commitment to St. Catharines and that this province is still getting some good share of the new investment for the lighter vehicles. So it is not all bad for St. Catharines.

Mr. Swart: May I inform the minister that we know of this $250-million expenditure, but it still will not make up anything like our fair share here in Canada, in Ontario and St. Catharines.

Does the minister not realize it is becoming more and more obvious that the four-cylinder engine is going to be the engine of the future? Therefore, does he not realize that by letting the new small-engine production slip away to the United States -- and it is all slipping away to the United States -- he is dooming our auto industry to an even more inferior position and is selling out the auto workers?

Can we expect a comprehensive statement from the minister in the very near future with major proposals to ensure there will be a healthy auto industry in this province in the future?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That was a terrific speech.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It could be as successful as putting toilet paper on his desk. I am not sure.

I am afraid I am not going to take responsibility for letting the four-cylinder engine production slip away to the United States. I admit to having a very modest degree of power over here but I suspect that, even if the member saw the day when he was over here, it would be beyond even his capacity to make the decisions for GM with regard to letting the four-cylinder engine plant slip away to the United States.

Mr. Peterson: That is the first humble remark you have ever made.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am trying it on. It is like contact lenses.

May I say that the member’s seatmate immediately in front of him has just received a copy of the speech I referred to earlier where I did address some of the major problems that our auto parts and auto industries are facing. Chief amongst those remarks was the announcement that we are creating an auto parts technical centre at the Ontario Research Foundation to provide the sort of research and development assistance that the Canadian-owned auto parts industry needs to keep up with the changes in the industry.

It will amount to quite a substantial financial commitment by this government to the Ontario Research Foundation and will directly assist the auto parts industry in this province to keep abreast of new technology, research and development and innovation.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, could the minister inform the House whether the officials of the Economic Development Fund have had discussions with General Motors within the last year and a half regarding the provision of funds for an expansion of the plant in St. Catharines? If they have had these discussions, could the minister reveal what the job guarantees would be in regard to those discussions?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, we have not, Mr. Speaker.

RELEASE ON LOOSENED WARRANT

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Attorney General: Given the growing concern in many Ontario communities that murderers and rapists who are classified as criminally insane and who have been committed to indefinite detention in a mental hospital under a Lieutenant Governor’s warrant can be treated and released under a loosened warrant and then can proceed to terrorize more innocent victims, can the minister assure this House and the people of Ontario that such patients judged to be fit for release will be kept under some kind of surveillance by police and medical authorities?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, it would be helpful if the honourable member could be specific. For example, I was in London last week, and I know there is a considerable amount of concern about the release from one of the federal penitentiaries of an individual. I believe he was convicted of murder prior to a period of incarceration and there was another similar offence within the prison. I gather this is not the situation the honourable member is talking about: where an individual has been found not guilty by reason of insanity, is confined to the hospital at Penetanguishene and at some point is released.

I want to make sure, having heard so much about the situation in London last week, that I understand the question. Are we talking about a release from a penitentiary? That, of course, is a matter within the jurisdiction of the federal government. Or are we talking about, as I think the member said, a loosened warrant for someone who has been found not guilty by reason of insanity? I can tell the honourable member a great deal of care goes into the decision-making process with respect to the board. The board comes under the Ministry of Health, because we are talking about people who have been confined to mental institutions.

I would be happy to describe what I know about the process in order to assure the honourable member that a great deal of care is taken before the release of anyone from a mental hospital pursuant to what the member quite properly describes as a loosened warrant. There is a board made up of psychiatrists who have no association with the particular inmates. It is chaired by a former judge or a judge of the Supreme Court of Ontario.

Mr. Van Horne: This is a serious matter, and I would like to go back to the minister’s assumption that I am concerned about the care given to the process of release. That was not the question. The question is about the surveillance of these people, after they are released, for the good of those citizens who are possibly innocent victims.

Let me further point out to the minister that there was a study of 206 male patients discharged from Ontario’s maximum-security mental health centres which showed a 46 per cent failure rate. If that group is so concerned about the process through which they are released, that had better be reviewed. But, beyond that, what is the minister doing with the failure rate?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I would be interested in knowing more about that study, because that figure of 46 per cent is much, much higher than any figures I have heard. The figures I have heard in the past have been closer to 10 per cent. Police forces are obviously interested in matters such as this, but there are certain practical limitations with respect to the type of surveillance that I think is being suggested by the member. For example, is the member talking about somebody who has been released from a mental institution having a police officer following him around 24 hours a day?

3:10 p.m.

WESTINGHOUSE CANADA

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Labour: Given the clear evidence, as outlined in the Ontario Labour Relations Board decision, that Westinghouse Canada, with deliberate and premeditated planning from head office USA, connived to move its Hamilton operations to escape the union, will the minister now order the company to retain the Hamilton operation? In the event of a plant move, will the minister now recognize the need for tough legislation which would require the extension of bargaining rights in any existing collective agreements, as these were the obvious major shortcomings in the labour board decision?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, if I may answer one part first, no, I do not have the power or the authority to order Westinghouse to do anything of the nature the member has suggested.

Second, I have some reservations about commenting on the judgement when we still do not know whether there is going to be an appeal. But assuming the judgement is upheld, I recall a discussion we had in estimates last year when the member was very pessimistic about the possibility of any resolution which would be appropriate to problems such as this. I indicated to the member that I believed we had set up a democratic process in our Labour Relations Act to allow resolution of problems.

If the judgement we have seen in the past two days is upheld, I think it is good proof of what I said to the member in December, and I say it again: It is apparent now that we have the means to resolve problems in a democratic process. I do not know why the member is suggesting something else needs to be done when it should be apparent to him the process is there, it is one that works and it has been demonstrated to work.

The other matter the member raised had to do with the rights of the union in the dislocated plants. I am sure the member knows it has been the view of this government that workers in new plants should make whatever decision they feel is appropriate.

Mr. Mackenzie: That leaves a lot open, but let me ask, is the minister aware of the reported intent of the company to go to court? Is the minister prepared to fight any company appeal of this decision in the court so that the workers do not have to go through the same thing that Radio Shack workers had to go through, and to ensure compliance with the board order?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: No, I am not aware of any appeal having been filed. If it is filed, then the board is represented by counsel, as are the parties to the action, and that is the way in a democracy.

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister, since in this case the judgement was based on the fact that the board had available to it a written document from the executive of the company which indicated guilt clear and simple, in black and white, does he expect in every case of this kind the board will be able to make a judgement without such a memo?

If the minister considers this precedent so important, how is the precedent going to be helpful unless we have a memo in each and every such case? We need legislation.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the suggestion of the member for Carleton East, I would hope that every time a decision is made by anyone, whether it is a minister, a judge or a jury, he bases it upon facts. That is the essence of our system of justice in this country. All of the facts may vary and the evidence available may vary. I think we have shown we have a good system of labour relations in this province.

LEGAL AID FOR OMB HEARING

Mr. Bradley: A question for the Attorney General, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that the Preservation of Agricultural Land Society has received from the Ontario Legal Aid Plan a legal aid certificate for up to $40,000 to assist in fighting its case involved in the Ontario Municipal Board hearings over the urban boundaries in Niagara north, and in view of the fact the city of St.

Catharines has expended some $109,000 and the city solicitor has asked for another $100,000 to fight these hearings, will the minister inform the House whether the legal aid plan or the provincial government would be prepared to reimburse the municipalities to the same tune as they have the Preservation of Agricultural Land Society for fighting the case before the OMB?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I think the honourable member fully appreciates that the Ontario Legal Aid Plan is administered pursuant to legislation passed by this assembly. It is given the responsibility of administering the Ontario Legal Aid Act. So I cannot assist the member either in relation to what decision was made by the clinical funding committee in relation to this particular certificate, and given the independence of the administration of the plan, obviously I cannot speak on behalf of the Law Society of Upper Canada in this respect.

Mr. Bradley: If this aid cannot be forthcoming from the Ontario Legal Aid Plan, will the minister consult with one of his cabinet colleagues, either the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) or perhaps the Minister of the Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells), to determine whether the funds can be provided to these municipalities, which are expending taxpayers’ dollars to defend a position in which they believe?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: There is nothing to prevent the member from asking the question of the Treasurer. I must admit I have other concerns that I am more likely to be troubling the Treasurer about.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, given that the amount being provided by legal aid is only a small fraction, perhaps one tenth of the money that the taxpayers in the region are having to provide for the other side, and in view of the fact that legal aid generally is considered to give somewhat of an even contest -- some balance -- and some legal rights to those who do not have the power to raise money willy-nilly, will he not agree this would be the kind of a circumstance where this aid is appropriate and has rightly been given through legal aid?

Will he not agree that the municipalities, which already get assistance from the provincial government in a variety of ways, should have some provincial funding to help them out now?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I understand the question other than I assume there has been the suggestion from the Liberal Party that the Ontario Legal Aid Plan has been overgenerous in relation to this certificate. That is what I infer from the question. I assume the New Democratic Party feels that the legal aid plan has not been generous enough. I invite both the members who have asked questions to communicate their concerns to those who are responsible for the administration of the Ontario Legal Aid Plan, and who are the individuals who have been given the mandate of this Legislature to administer the plan.

Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, on the same matter, bearing in mind that these hearings have to do with the appeal against a cabinet decision, and inasmuch as there are many individual property owners, either inside or outside the urban area boundaries, who are going to be affected by this and do not have the opportunity to raise money willy-nilly as the member for Welland-Thorold suggests, I ask the minister if, in his opinion, it would not be fair to provide equity by also seeing to it, if the funds are given to the one group, that the individual should also be recognized, if indeed that is the policy as he sees it?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Again, Mr. Speaker, these are questions that might properly be directed towards the legal aid funding committee so far as their policy is concerned. I do not think there is anything further I can add to the questions I have already answered, other than to say that I do know the funding committee views these applications on the merits of each particular case. If the honourable member wants more information about the decision that was made by the legal aid plan in this particular case, I will be happy to obtain it for him.

Mr. Swart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing out of order.

Mr. Swart: There is something out of order. May I point out that this is not an appeal to a cabinet decision whatsoever that is taking place down there.

Mr. Speaker: That’s not a point of order. With all respect, it’s not a point of order.

3:20 p.m.

INQUEST ON FIREFIGHTERS’ DEATHS

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, has the Solicitor General had an opportunity to examine the recommendations of the coroner’s jury on the tragic death of three firefighters at the Kimberly-Clark plant? In particular, can the minister tell the House what his ministry will be doing to implement the specific recommendation that there be a more effective training program that would instruct firefighters in fighting industrial fires?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet seen those recommendations. I will be reviewing the recommendations of the coroner’s jury. I will be discussing them with the fire marshal, and I will report back to the honourable member.

Mr. Philip: Is the minister prepared at this point to reconsider the position he took in a letter to me on February 21? In it he refused to adopt the system of sending coroner’s recommendations to MPPs on those inquests affecting their constituents, on the grounds that he has only one staff member handling the follow-ups and does not have adequate financing to hire an additional staff person.

If he is not prepared to reconsider, what assurance do we have that this one lonely staff person in his ministry will do the appropriate follow-up and put the appropriate pressure on his own ministry so that the kinds of recommendations that have been adopted in the Kimberly-Clark instance will be implemented by the Solicitor General?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: To repeat what I said when this was discussed in the Solicitor General’s estimates at the end of last year, we will continue to assure the honourable member, and the Legislature generally, that these recommendations will be followed up, as they are at present.

BOARD OF OPHTHALMIC DISPENSERS

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health, if I might have his attention.

His response to my colleague the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) concerning the Board of Ophthalmic Dispensers, on March 25, 1980, was, “I can assure the member that the present makeup of the [Board of Ophthalmic Dispensers], which is larger than the board was when I found it three years ago, is less connected in any way to the particular firm [Imperial Optical] to which he makes reference...” Is the minister aware that the just-retired chairman of the board says this statement is “the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard”?

Is the minister aware, and can he confirm or deny, that five of the 10 members of the Board of Ophthalmic Dispensers are at present working with, or in one case just retired from, Imperial Optical? Is he aware this is quite unlike how he found the board three years ago when he became minister, when not five but only one of eight members was connected with Imperial Optical?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the complete list with me, but my recollection is that it is something in the order of two or thee people who at one time or another have had some connection, some business dealings, with the firm in question.

I guess I would have to say at the outset that the honourable member, in framing his question the way he has, seems to have decided that any association with that firm is tantamount to some form of criminal activity.

The fact remains that the firm in question is a very large one, one that has had a very large role for a great period of time in that industry. We have recently enlarged the board to add a number of independents to try to ensure it has as diverse a membership as possible.

I asked the current chairman of the Board of Ophthalmic Dispensers why the former chairman would say that. I am not sure, but that is his business. He hasn’t said that to me. I am intrigued that the honourable member would make the kinds of assumptions he seems to have made. If he has any specific allegations to make, I would be glad to look into them. But I believe --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions expired one and a half minutes ago.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Could I complete my answer?

Mr. Speaker: If you want to complete it, instead of listening to interjections.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I have no choice but to listen to them, Mr. Speaker. They are supposedly honourable members; that is, the members making the interjections. Those members who were not making them should not get upset.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

Mr. Conway: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I doubt that you have one, but I’ll let you place it.

Mr. Conway: I do believe I have a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I think the Minister of Health would wish to withdraw the imputation that in my question there was any suggestion of criminality in the association of Imperial Optical with the Board of Ophthalmic Dispensers. I think the honourable minister would wish to withdraw that imputation.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner).

Mr. Nixon: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Surely it is your responsibility to respond to that. It was clearly indicated that the member felt the reference was tantamount to criminal activity.

Mr. Speaker: I did not get that. I will have to look at the record.

YOUTH ASSISTING YOUTH

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, I believe my privileges as a member have run afoul because of the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Norton). He may have not only misled me -- and I leave it to your discretion -- but also the agency of an important social program in the province.

On April 21, in this House, I asked him a question with respect to a program called Youth Assisting Youth. I asked him, “Will you give us an answer before April 30? Yes or no.” The minister responded: “Of course I will, if that’s the deadline. I will give the agency an answer.”

I am informed by his staff that, as of today, which is beyond April 30, there is no decision and that it will come later. I submit that the minister has caused a serious problem for that program and that agency, as well as misleading me and the House.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I will immediately check into that. The decision has been made. The answer is no, and I understood my staff had communicated that to that agency. We already fund that agency in the amount of approximately $31,000.

It is my understanding that Metropolitan Toronto has agreed to contribute to the funding of it. There is a shortfall of something like $7,000 in community support. As I suggested to the honourable member at the time when he raised the question, I think someone with his influence in the community could head up a fund-raising campaign and raise $7,000.

Mr. Warner: The minister said he would give me an answer, and he did not.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I will check to see whether the decision was communicated. The decision was made, and I asked my stall to communicate it to the agency.

VACANT LAND CONDOMINIUMS

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of privilege, which I hope you will rule on. There appear to be contradictions in the written answer tabled in this House by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea). There are statements which contradict previous statements by his predecessor and which leave me and other members of this House in a very difficult position in determining the ministry’s position.

I am referring specifically to the answer to question 111, tabled in this House on April 24, in which the minister stated that he was unable to provide, as was requested in the question, working papers that his ministry had produced in developing the concept of vacant land condominiums for an amendment to the Condominium Act.

Mr. Speaker: Is the honourable member objecting to the fact that the policy has changed?

Mr. Wildman: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Would the honourable member please get to his point of privilege?

3:30 p.m.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, the point is that his predecessor stated in October 1978, in testimony before the standing committee on the administration of justice, that his ministry had been working on that concept for 60 days and that he was quite prepared to table to the committee, and provide to me personally, those working papers. When I did not receive them I subsequently wrote to the present minister, who said he would live up to the commitments of his predecessor.

I wrote and asked for them and I still have not received them. I put a question on the Order Paper asking for them and he stated in his answer that there were no working papers. How can his predecessor say there are working papers and this minister say there are none?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member wants to know what the policy is, may I humbly suggest that he stand up and ask the question. In a written question he asked me to produce all the working documents that I had. I do not have any working documents. I do not operate with working papers. I make decisions in other ways.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, in the same vein as the point of privilege raised by the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere, when a member asks a question of a minister and the minister responds that he will look into it or check into it and respond, and two or three weeks go by, is it proper for us to redirect the question or should we wait? In other words, is there anything in the standing orders that would give direction to a time limit on this?

On April 10 I asked a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) and on April 18 I asked one of the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell). Both indicated they would respond and they have not done so.

Mr. Speaker: There is a time restriction with regard to written questions that are placed to a minister. There is none that I am aware of with regard to an oral question, but if a minister makes a commitment and has forgotten, perhaps it would be useful if the member reminded him that he did make that commitment.

Mr. Van Horne: Would this then serve as notice, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I would certainly hope so.

Mr. Van Horne: Thank you.

CONFEDERATION DEBATE

Mr. Speaker: Honourable members will note that they have received a copy of a background paper on the future of Confederation. This paper was prepared for the use of members by the research service of the library in anticipation of next week’s debate on the constitution.

I can also report to the House that the legislative library research service will be preparing and distributing a

summary report of highlights of the Confederation debate after each sitting. The purpose of this

summary report will be to keep members informed of the major points raised during the course of the debate in order to promote better continuity. It is not, of course, intended as a verbatim report of speeches but simply to help the members.

PETITION

MANITOBA LEGISLATURE PROCEEDINGS

Ms. Bryden: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly signed by Mr. Guy Babineau, who lives in my riding, requesting that the Ontario Legislature ask the federal government to submit the following question to the Supreme Court of Canada:

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Villeneuve from the standing committee on resources development presented the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Energy be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981:

Ministry administration program, $1,934,000; conventional energy program, $2,786,000; renewable energy program, $6,971,000; energy conservation program, $17,552,000; regulatory affairs program, $1,465,000.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

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

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr11,

An Act respecting the City of Brantford;

Bill Pr22,

An Act respecting Crossroads Christian Communications Incorporated;

Bill Pr24,

An Act respecting the Borough of Scarborough.

Your committee would recommend that the fees plus the actual cost of printing be remitted on Bill Pr22,

An Act respecting Crossroads Christian Communications Incorporated.

Report adopted.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved first reading of Bill 65,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Motion agreed to.

MONTREAL TRUST COMPANY OF CANADA ACT

Mr. McCaffrey moved first reading of Bill Pr7,

An Act respecting Montreal Trust Company and Montreal Trust Company of Canada.

Motion agreed to.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 66,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to require that no employer shall require that any portion of the tips or other gratuities paid to waiters, or waitresses will be other than their own property, unless they make the decision themselves.

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill Pr27,

An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

Motion agreed to.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day I would like to table the answers to questions 64, 73, 74, 75, 90, 121, 127 and 129, and the interim answers to questions 122, 126 and 128 standing on the Notice Paper.

CONFEDERATION DEBATE

Hon. Mr. Wells moved resolution 10:

That this House approves the radio and television broadcasting of proceedings on orders of the day in both languages of the House from May 5 to May 9, on the basis of principles similar to those that govern the publication of the printed official reports of debates; and that Mr. Speaker make the necessary arrangements for such coverage in both languages of the House with simultaneous translation; and that, notwithstanding the standing orders and practices of the House, leave be given to Mr. Davis, jointly seconded by Mr. Smith (Hamilton West) and Mr.

Cassidy, to have a resolution respecting the constitution, to be tabled today, stand on the Notice Paper in both languages of the House in the name of all three leaders; and that the House be authorized to sit, in addition to its usual sittings, next Monday night from 8 p.m. to 10:30 p.m., next Wednesday from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. without routine proceedings and, on motion, next Thursday from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.; and that private members’ business next Thursday be deferred one week; and that next Monday night, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday any speaker on the resolution with respect to the constitution be limited to 20 minutes in length for purposes of accommodating wide participation in the debate.

Resolution concurred in.

3:40 p.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

DISASTER RELIEF FUND

Mr. G. I. Miller moved resolution 13:

That in the opinion of this House the government of Ontario should set up a permanent relief program to provide grants and low-interest loans to individuals and communities for severe damage and loss due to natural disasters, and that this assistance be handled by municipalities in organized areas and by a ministry in areas not organized.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, it certainly is a pleasure to speak in support of the resolution. I would like to give members a little background on the reason behind it. In 1974, a member of the council of the city of Nanticoke was trying to sell the possibility of setting up a lottery fund in Ontario. He finally sold the council of the city of Nanticoke on supporting this resolution to the province of Ontario. Since that time the lottery fund has come into existence, but it wasn’t utilized in the manner suggested by the original designer of the lottery.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: What could possibly be the member’s point of order?

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in the resolution that mentions lotteries. Are we discussing lotteries or the resolution?

Mr. Speaker: It is the honourable member’s resolution. Surely he should be given sufficient freedom to discuss why he saw fit to bring in the resolution.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Back in October 1977 my colleague the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) introduced a similar resolution. At that time he also suggested that an emergency relief and disaster fund should be established, financed by portions of the lottery revenues.

Since that time there have been numerous floods and a tornado, not to mention the disastrous blue mould on tobacco plants which occurred in our district of southwestern Ontario. Yet the government has persisted in taking an ad hoc approach to the assistance of individuals in communities where natural disasters, such as wind storms, floods, fire and hail, have caused damage that could not adequately be met by regular insurance procedures.

Only last Monday night the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson) was down to Tillsonburg. Through the Ontario insurance program I think 1,200 farmers received something like $38 million from the public treasury. While there were 2,600 producers in the area, 1,400 of those producers were not able to receive any assistance except by way of a loan at one per cent over the prime rate. We all know what that would do to them at the high interest rates of today.

Frequently, there is particular difficulty in obtaining government and even community assistance when these disasters affect only a few families. What we need is a widely recognized and well coordinated approach to these matters, whether they involve many hundreds of people or just a few.

I would like to point out as an example in our area that Port Maitland, a small community on the mouth of the Grand River on Lake Erie, has been flooded out four times since I have been a member of this Legislature. We have discussed this with the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, through the local council, and there has been no assistance made available up to this time.

Surely it is time that Ontario had a clear financial program for the designation of disaster situations, a program whereby citizens directly affected could have immediate assistance. How can there possibly be any question about the need for a disaster relief fund to help communities devastated by a tornado which has left in its wake destruction and even death? One went through the Woodstock, Scotland and Waterford areas only last summer.

When a tornado strikes, homes are damaged, greenhouses are smashed, trees are toppled and crops are flattened. In rare instances, livestock and human lives are lost. I would like to point out that about 200 head of livestock were lost in that tornado last summer and 20 homes that were used for the workers, who weren’t able to qualify for assistance. I brought that to the attention of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs because apparently about $6 million remains in that fund, which has been oversubscribed from that tornado and not all of the money has been used.

Most of us welcome the spring of the year, but to some Ontarians the season means the danger of spring thaws, swollen flood waters, shoreline erosion, incredible loss and damage to property. We have experienced that many times with the Grand River coming though the Brant and Haldimand-Norfolk areas, and it has done considerable damage over the years. Not only that, the Thames River near Dresden flooded only last year. The Ganaraska River at Port Hope this year was another example of what flooding rivers can do.

For years we have been aware of the possible dangers to farm crops from weather conditions, not to mention disease and pests. What happened with the blue mould comes into this category. Blue mould has been termed the number one enemy of the tobacco producers. This fungus disease caused losses to the North American tobacco crop last year totalling $242 million, including a 30 per cent crop loss in Canada valued at $90 million. By late July and early August, it had spread in epidemic proportions throughout the heart of southern Ontario’s tobacco growing area.

The United States legislation on disaster relief defines an emergency as any hurricane, tornado, storm, flood, high water, wind-driven water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, snowstorm, drought, fire, explosion or other catastrophe. A major disaster means similar occurrences which are considered to have caused damage of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant major disaster assistance above and beyond emergency services.

The legislation expresses a need to issue timely disaster warnings and, in the area of agriculture in the US legislation, it is intended to assist farmers who are prevented from planting any portion of the farm acreage allotment or who suffer substantial loss on planted acres because of drought, flood or other natural disaster or conditions beyond the control of the producer to protect against economical injurious plant and animal diseases or pests and to share the cost of approved emergency conservation measures. It is intended to provide assistance to prevent widespread liquidation or undue severe culling of livestock because of natural disaster.

The development and management of certain publicly and privately owned resources are covered, and assistance is provided in the aftermath of a natural disaster for the cleanup operation and the repair of electrification and telephone services. In addition, provision is made for the removal of damaged timber. Only last Monday night, as I drove down to Tillsonburg to a meeting of the chamber of commerce, we went through the tornado area. Those wood lots certainly need a lot of work; they are full of tin, metal, et cetera. It is hard to believe the damage caused by that tornado last summer to the wood lots in that particular area.

3:50 p.m.

Business repair loans, economic injury loans and product loss loans are also covered. The legislation mentions the provision of temporary communication facilities in disaster areas when these have been severely disrupted, the removal of debris and wreckage, the provision of emergency flood-lighting and rescue operations, and the supply of food and water, including mass feeding and shelter services.

Protection of life and property are covered, as are evacuation and search and rescue operations, including temporary public transportation services, victim identification, water supply equipment and fire suppression assistance.

Provision is made for bank protection of highways, high bridges, essential public works, churches, hospitals, schools and other nonprofit public services endangered by flood-caused erosion, not to mention control of beach and soil erosion to public shores, flood control projects, flood plain management and watershed protection. We have municipalities for which we have tried to get assistance, such as Port Dover, where the foundations of 40 or 50 homes are being eroded because of the high water levels in the lake.

There are also municipal roads and the municipal sewage system within a few hundred feet of the lake bank. There do not seem to be any programs available to give assistance to protect homes and protect the assessment that lies within that area.

The legislation covers the establishment of public health controls, the protection of the general public from contamination by unsafe food and drugs and the establishment of health, medical and sanitary services.

Home repair loans are also covered and financed, and there is financing of mobile home purchases for home disaster victims. Rural housing is specifically mentioned, including assistance to farm owners and other home owners in rural areas for the replacement or repair of dwellings and related facilities damaged or destroyed by natural disaster, Temporary housing facilities are also mentioned.

In addition, the United States legislation covers individual and family grants, legal services, tax information, unemployment insurance, building damage research, emergency medical services, emergency operating standards, school construction, school maintenance and operation assistance, and numerous other subjects.

The House will realize from what I have said that the United States legislation is quite comprehensive. Surely the people of Ontario are entitled to the same kind of assistance as is available to our neighbours to the south. Their needs are no greater than ours on a per capita basis.

The provincial government has dragged its feet far too long on this question. Meanwhile, Ontarians have been forced to struggle against tremendous odds to rebuild their lives, which have been severely affected by natural disasters and circumstances entirely beyond their control. Obviously this is quite a complicated matter, and there will be some reservations about the establishment of a disaster relief fund. I know we have discussed it many times. Perhaps the government will put up some strong opposition.

Its administration needs to be considered very carefully. The cost factor has to be taken into account as well as the question of individual insurance coverage.

I would like to point out that it is not intended to be construed as an alternative to individual insurance coverages. That is not the intent of the resolution at all. I would be foolish to promote that. It would be additional and strictly for disaster cases.

Nevertheless, events in recent years have made it clear that some kind of disaster assistance program is necessary to help communities and individuals caught up in natural disasters. Certainly some kind of disaster warning system is essential; therefore, I would strongly urge the members of this House to give their support to this resolution, which calls for the establishment of a permanent relief program to provide grants and low-interest loans to individuals and communities for severe damage and loss caused by natural disasters.

We have received some resolutions from various municipalities, and I would like to conclude my portion of the debate by reading this resolution into the record. It came in on April 28 from the town of Dunnville, and it reads as follows:

“That

whereas disasters, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, fires, floods and other acts of God frequently strike without warning, causing extensive property damage as well as personal injury and occasionally death;

“and

whereas in most cases the victims of such disasters, as well as the municipality, are totally unable to provide the necessary financial assistance to rehabilitate the area and help the unfortunate persons who suffer loss and injury;

“and

whereas the source of funds available to municipalities is limited almost entirely to municipal taxation, which is now a tremendous burden on the big majority of the citizens;

“be it therefore resolved that the federal and provincial governments be requested to establish a special reserve fund and adopt a uniform policy or criteria to administer and disburse such fund when disaster strikes.”

We have received messages from several other municipalities supporting the resolution that was brought forth by the town of Dunnville in the region of Haldimand-Norfolk.

With those comments, Mr. Speaker, I would like to leave the debate to the opposition members.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member has five minutes remaining in his allotted time. Does he wish to reserve any of that?

Mr. G. I. Miller: Yes.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Haldimand-Norfolk for bringing this matter before the House. I also want to explain my previous intervention.

I was quite prepared, and am still prepared, to discuss what he has to say in his resolution. Unfortunately, though, I am unable at this time to speak to his suggestion that this proposal be financed through lotteries. Since that was not in the resolution as is printed on the Order Paper, I was not prepared to discuss that particular aspect. Frankly, I think that suggestion raises some serious questions which could really affect the overall debate and perhaps get the thrust of it away from what the member intended. I will not speak to that. All I will say is that I have some serious questions about those suggestions in his comments.

The reason I want to participate in this debate is that in the last couple of years I have had some extensive experience with having to persuade the provincial government to provide funding for communities and individuals, home owners, farmers and small businessmen who have sustained severe damage caused by floods, especially last year in northern Ontario when we experienced very serious flooding and we had to apply for assistance.

I want to make clear that although there was no permanent fund in the particular flooding situations last year in northern Ontario, the provincial government, after some serious prodding by local members from a number of the parties, did respond. They did respond, I will admit, in an ad hoc fashion. Normally, the criterion for their program is a one-to-one cost-sharing basis. For every dollar raised locally, the provincial government will provide one dollar to areas that have been declared disaster areas to assist in compensating people who have sustained damage and to help them make repairs.

4 p.m.

I suppose partly because of the ad hoc nature of this program, the government last year, in the response to the Field flood, agreed to provide $4 of provincial funding for every $1 provided locally. That was then extended to the other communities in the north that experienced flooding last year, to the extent that three communities in my riding benefited significantly. Iron Bridge, for instance, received approximately $79,000; White River and Goulais River each received approximately $55,000 in provincial funds, matching on a four-to-one basis.

If the member is suggesting in his resolution that a permanent relief fund, if it is set up, would not allow for adjustments in relation to the size of the communities and their ability to raise funds locally, I am afraid I am not in favour of that. The reason is that some small communities, especially small rural communities or small isolated communities in northern Ontario, do not have local industries that are able to contribute funds.

If, however, in his permanent fund proposal he is suggesting there would not be any need for local funding in this program -- that is, that all of the compensation and funds to assist in repairs would come from provincial coffers -- then I suppose that is no longer a problem. I have some difficulty with the resolution in that it does not spell that out, and I do not think the member himself spelled that out in his comments in leading off the debate.

Personally, as I said, after some prodding, I was satisfied with the response of the staff of the subsidies branch of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs, and I want to congratulate them for their concern and their hard work in trying to assist the communities in my riding.

However, since this is not a permanent program and is dependent upon the declaration of a disaster, either by the municipality or, in unorganized areas, by the Ministry of Natural Resources, we run into problems where small numbers of people have sustained serious damage but it is not considered an overall disaster for a large area and so the funding is not made available.

In my particular riding, the community of Goulais River this year again experienced flooding, although not nearly to the extent of last year. But home owners who were just recovering from the damage done by last year’s flood again experienced flooding this year, and we are running into some problems in persuading the provincial government that we have a disaster again and that they should become involved.

They are saying, “There weren’t as many people, as many homes, as many properties involved, and we don’t believe it to be a disaster.” They may be correct in that, but it is a disaster for the individual people and for the home owners and small businesses involved.

From my view, the main purpose of any permanent relief program must be to ensure that people are able to maintain shelter, that they will have a place to live while repairs are made and that repairs will be made in such a way that they will not suffer long-term damage and inconvenience because of a natural disaster.

I believe those funds must be made available by the province. I also believe we should continue the thrust towards assisting farmers and small businessmen who would have a difficult time in raising the capital to stay in business. They are very important to small communities, not only for themselves, but also for their neighbours and the jobs they provide. I would support the suggestion in the resolution that low-interest loans be made available to farmers and small businessmen.

The one question I have in regard to the comments made by the member for Haldimand-Norfolk, however, is related to his discussion of crop damage. We do have a crop insurance program and, if there is damage caused by weather, drought or too much rain, or a fungus, or some predator and its effect on a crop, there is provision for crop insurance to deal with those kinds of problems. I am not sure we need a permanent disaster relief fund to deal with those kinds of problems. I think they can be dealt with in other ways.

Overall, I believe we have to get into the question of how this kind of program could be administered. Although the resolution says the funds will be administered by municipalities in organized areas, the member does not make provision in it for an approval procedure by a ministry. I think it’s obvious we have to have some kind of provincial approval process by which an area is determined to be in need and in which the province is involved. We cannot just leave a permanent fund there to be tapped by a municipality, when and if it thought it desirable, without any real provincial input.

I am also concerned about another aspect of the resolution, especially in my area, where the community of Goulais River is located in an unorganized area. Last year was the first time any such community received assistance under the disaster relief program of the government. I am concerned about what the resolution says about a ministry administering this program in an unorganized area.

We should be more specific. I would think it should be dealt with directly by the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs. It should not be the Ministry of Northern Affairs, not because I necessarily have anything against the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier), but because in the past the Ministry of Northern Affairs has been accused -- not by me -- of being at times involved in what used to be called, in less enlightened days, pork-barrel politics. I would hope this kind of program would never become anything like that.

I would prefer to have a ministry that is not directly involved in the distribution of grants and funds throughout the unorganized areas involved in something as serious as disaster relief. If the Ministry of Northern Affairs wishes to continue handing out cheques the way it has done in the past for nice little recreation programs or even fire protection programs, then that’s fine.

Overall, I support the resolution. I am a little concerned that it is not more detailed in expressing exactly what the member is intending.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. Wildman: I will support the resolution, but I believe it does not speak to the overall problem we have, which is getting into flood prevention, for which there is very little funding from this government.

Mr. Rowe: Mr. Speaker, just to ease your mind about the order of the speakers on the program, I expect the minister will be here shortly. At his request, we have switched places.

Mr. Foulds: It is a more than adequate substitution.

Mr. Rowe: Thank you very much. I am very much interested in this resolution. I am glad to see this resolution rather than some sort of a private member’s bill. I am also in receipt of the resolution by the town of Dunnville which purports to do approximately the same thing as the member’s resolution. I might say I have also had support from one of the councils in my area for a resolution such as the one proposed by Dunnville.

This is a rather timely resolution for us to consider as we have experienced several major disasters in Ontario in the past few months.

There was the Woodstock flood, which we all remember; the Mississauga train derailment; and the severe flooding in Port Hope. I will have more to say about that shortly. The Mississauga train derailment was not what one would call a natural disaster, as referred to in the member’s resolution.

Mr. Wildman: Marc Lalonde administered disaster on Port Hope too.

Mr. Rowe: He’s more natural. I don’t suppose the people who had to evacuate their homes and businesses in Mississauga gave much thought at the time to the cause of the problem. In the urgency of the situation, I believe most people are primarily concerned with basic survival. I also agree that in a well-managed jurisdiction, such as Ontario, the public has every right to expect the maximum degree of protection from disasters and of help in the face of unavoidable actions and occurrences which disrupt their lives.

I refer to Port Hope in my riding. It would be impossible to describe in words the feelings that I and many others experienced as we watched the flood waters destroying homes, recreational facilities, offices, stores, roads, parks and manufacturing facilities that night. As I have described oft-times to individuals, while watching the flood that night there were literally three rivers flowing down through the centre of town, with the odd refrigerator, door and stove floating along down into Lake Ontario.

I might also say that as a result of the 1973 flood, last summer they dug an automobile out of the harbour when they were digging the harbour out. Many strange things can happen when nature runs wild. In fact, many tales of weird sights and events could be told, and have been told, about that night in Port Hope.

4:10 p.m.

However, speaking as an interested eyewitness, I can assure every member of this House that at no time did the residents of Port Hope and area feel a lack of confidence in the support provided by both their local and provincial governments. Indeed, the very next morning, representatives of various ministries from this government were on the scene. In fact, on the Monday morning, two days later, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) himself was there, as was the Deputy Minister of Transportation and Communications and officials of the Ministry of Natural Resources, and so on.

Also, lest we think Port Hope was the only place hit by that rain that day, because of severe damage in many pockets around the whole county of Northumberland -- perhaps not enough in every case to declare each individual municipality a disaster area but certainly enough in total to perhaps justify the declaration of the whole area as a disaster area -- action has been taken to gather together the total picture. This information is being collected and there will be an application through the county, I am almost certain, for further action similar to what was taken in Port Hope, where, of course, it was quite obvious it was a disaster situation.

This prompt action was appreciated and recognized by the council and various organizations in the town. They still express their appreciation to the minister, to myself and to other people who contributed.

In the midst of their tribulations I am sure it was comforting to the people in Mississauga when they got the same prompt attention last year to see the way in which their own municipal officials and members of this government did provide leadership.

I recognize that the basic subject of the resolution we are considering today is not moral support; nor is it leadership in crisis situations. However, it seems to assume that this government does not already have disaster relief programs in place. Let me assure every member of the House that Ontario has very adequate disaster relief programs and that, in spite of everyone’s best efforts to prevent disasters, they have been thoroughly tested in the past year at Port Hope, Mississauga, Woodstock, et cetera.

I am happy to report that our programs of assistance to victims of disasters in all these cases have withstood these tests and trials. They have, so to speak, passed with flying colours.

The Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs already has in place three programs which provide grants and loans to individual municipalities. These are for repair, replacement and protection of property damaged in natural calamities.

First, there is the Ontario Disaster Relief Assistance Program. It is administered, and very capably I might add, by the subsidies branch of that ministry. In the ministry’s estimates of 1980-81, this program has allocated a contingency amount of $404,000. Once the Ontario cabinet has declared a disaster area affecting one or more municipalities, this program is then activated. It gives help on a dollar-for-dollar basis by matching contributions made by the general public, businesses and other municipalities to a local disaster relief committee.

This may be dollar for dollar; it may be two for one or three for one, as in the case of Port Hope, or even higher, depending upon the seriousness of the situation

This program is not intended, of course, to be a substitute for adequate insurance coverage. In many cases, such as the flood in Port Hope, it is impossible to buy adequate flood insurance. It is different, however, in cases such as hurricanes, heavy winds and so on, where insurance protection is available, and in those cases -- and it does happen quite frequently where severe damage does take place -- public money should not be expected to come to the rescue there. When insurance is available, people should be carrying insurance.

This is not a government which tries to foster the illusion that government can do everything for the citizens. But it is a compassionate government, and when disasters strike which cause people to suffer losses so widespread and severe that they cannot possibly cope alone, or with the assistance of the insurance, the Ontario disaster relief program is there to help. I emphasize it is administered by a local relief committee with help, where necessary, from the province.

In the past fiscal year, a total of $3.5 million was paid to nine disaster committees. In the Port Hope case and in the Woodstock case a provincial disaster relief co-ordinator has been appointed from Intergovernmental Affairs, to help co-ordinate provincial ministry’s efforts in providing help to those communities. The field services branch of the ministry is there to help such municipalities clean up immediately after a disaster.

We have other programs in place as well. There is, for example, the special emergency assistance program. It too is administered by the same ministry. Under this program help is available to all communities which have suffered flooding or erosion problems as a result of high water levels in the Great Lakes. The program provides for a provincial grant of 80 per cent of the eligible costs incurred by the municipality in repairing and improving roads and dikes and pumping flood water from lands for which the municipality is responsible and in constituting protective works to prevent erosion of roads.

In the fiscal year of 1979-80, a total of $450,000 was provided to 21 municipalities under that program.

There is also the shoreline property assistance program. It provides help to owners of shoreline properties in the province which have been or may be damaged by high water levels or the action of ice. It provides a low-interest loan of up to 90 per cent of the cost of repairs and protection. These are repayable through the borrower’s property taxes in 20 equal annual instalments of principal and interest. In the past year, a total of well over $500,000 was lent to 82 applicants under that program.

In addition, provincial financial assistance may also be made available by other ministries. For example, low-interest loans are made to business owners under the Ontario Development Corporation. In Port Hope, those storekeepers and so on who suffered losses which were not covered by insurance are able to borrow money at six per cent, with the balance being subsidized through that program.

The Ministry of Transportation and Communications may assist municipalities to repair public roads and bridges and so forth, and that is in addition to what was normally budgeted for that particular community.

There is no question that these programs are functioning and quite adequately. This government is providing the leadership and the material support Ontarians have a right to expect. It is doing so without --

Mr. Acting Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. Rowe: I have the same reservations about the resolution introduced by the honourable member as the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) expressed as to how it finally would be administered. But it is worthy of consideration, and I thank the House for the opportunity to express these few thoughts.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take

part in the resolution this afternoon standing in the name of my colleague from Haldimand-Norfolk, with regard to disaster areas.

In speaking on resolution 11, I feel compelled to enlighten the members of the Legislature and the government about a recent disaster in the town of Essex which has caused a great deal of damage.

An impaired driver of an automobile crashed into a natural gas meter and plunged his car through store wall. About 30 minutes later a great explosion occurred at 2:15 in the morning, and left a town block in ruins.

The resolution we are speaking to today refers to natural disasters. How does one define “natural”? I suppose an impaired driver behind the wheel of a car could be expected to lose control of his car, because the natural thing when impaired is to do that. We have records to prove that, and a report of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications shows the number of accidents that happen from impaired driving. It is rather an odd way to put it, but I guess if somebody is going to get drunk then the natural thing for him to do if he is driving a car would be that. I may be stretching the point a little bit, but it is an interesting way of looking at it.

The town of Essex sent the mayor and the clerk-treasurer and one councillor to meet with the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and his officials. However, the minister did not show up. The delegates were disappointed, but they met with staff of the subsidies branch and the parliamentary assistant. They were given some encouragement as to the possibility of aid through the Ontario Development Corporation for low-interest loans at a possible six per cent. There was some question as to how the matching fund grant might be applied. This was to be decided by the cabinet; in this case there were only three small apartments included in the stores, and all the rest was a commercial area.

4:20 p.m.

To this date there has been no decision as to a designation of the area and, in answer to my questions of April 11 and April 24, the minister passed them on to the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) for a review by the Ontario Development Corporation. The problem with the present system as compared to the resolution we are dealing with today is we would at least have a fund set up and a group aware of the serious situations wherever they may be and able to take action immediately.

The recent flood in Port Hope, as was mentioned by the previous speaker, was so designated and six per cent interest loans were made available to businessmen rebuilding and purchasing inventory. We realize, however, that there is some question as to similarity in Essex, as in most cases one cannot obtain insurance for loss from flooding.

The town of Essex has set up a disaster relief committee to raise funds, and up to the present time a little more than $20,000 has been received. In this particular case, a cheque from the city of Detroit Rotary Club for $1,000 and some smaller cheques from individuals in the United States were received, because of the rescue of the six hostages by the Canadian embassy in Iran.

Many are aware of the fire disaster in Cobalt a few years ago when more than 400 people were left homeless. That was a major fire disaster. The provincial government matched four dollars to one dollar on what was raised locally.

Essex has been advised it could be eligible for relief funds from the province, as a result of the loss of assessment which will come through the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs, because of the number of buildings destroyed by the fire.

In supporting the resolution today, I want to tell the members of the Legislature about the need for such a fund to protect ourselves from future disasters. We realize that the people involved in the Essex disaster in most cases did have the usual fire and explosion insurance, but it is most difficult to cover for such a major disaster. I can think of some cases where they may have had $100,000 of insurance on what was considered an older building. Yet, when one rebuilds from the ground up at today’s prices, it would probably cost $250,000 to replace.

If one borrows the difference between the $100,000 insurance and the cost of $250,000 -- that is $150,000 -- at today’s interest rates of 17 per cent or more, it is almost impossible for a businessman to handle such an expense.

By having a fund set up as stated in the resolution, it would take it out of the immediate political situation. A general consensus of many people is that sometimes a decision made under the system may be used for political purposes. Of course, we would hope that would not be the case.

The town of Essex, hard hit by its own disaster, sent an additional $100 to the ailing Field-Springer relief fund. The two sparsely populated northern Ontario townships were hit hard by flooding last year and have been unable to meet their fund-raising objectives.

Essex had already sent $100 following a decision made on July 3, but decided to send the extra money after receiving a letter from fund organizers. The committee in that town has $2,444,844 in approved claims to pay out but has only managed to accumulate $1.8 million. The total includes $373,544 raised privately and matched four to one by the provincial disaster relief fund. The two townships need an additional $114,116 plus the provincial money to reach their objective.

In the case of Essex, the Ontario Development Corporation came down and made a survey and interviewed a number of business people. They did offer some money they could make available at 11.5 per cent. The problem is when we build new buildings, at what they cost today and with the insurance people have, it seems we are all the same. We think we have enough insurance on our buildings, and when the crunch comes and we start rebuilding, in many cases it just is not enough.

The other thing is that in some of the disaster areas in the past year, I understand if one person had full insurance and his neighbour had no insurance, the disaster relief fund would give the neighbour who had no insurance the same amount of money as the insured neighbour. He is as well off as the one who had insurance, but he paid no premiums for the previous 25 years, say. That is one of the problems with any disaster fund, and that is why I am not sure.

In the case of Essex, where there was a natural gas explosion, not a flood or tornado, maybe the people there also should be entitled to some assistance. They are not asking for grants or anything; they are just asking that a lower interest rate be supplied though the Ontario Development Corporation. The town has not been designated, and yet it has $20,000 in its fund to assist those hardest hit. If it were designated, it would be eligible to be matched dollar for dollar. That would be another $20,000 from the province, which would help those in direct need. But it would not be nearly enough to help somebody rebuild, get the inventory back in and be in business.

I am supporting the resolution. I think we need to have something like this available so that it is ready to go into effect the minute a disaster happens. It may have to cover more than what we classify as natural disasters. What is a disaster and what is natural is a matter of

interpretation.

Mr. Makarchuk: Mr. Speaker, I too rise to support the resolution that was introduced in private members’ hour. I want to say to the member that perhaps it would be a stronger resolution if he did not mention the matter of lotteries. I can visualize a situation where a certain amount of lottery funds is available for disaster relief, there is a series of disasters and the fund is expended; then if there is another disaster, there is no money. What do you tell the people then? “You are out of luck”? I think the funding should be out of the consolidated revenue fund provided by the provincial government.

The attractive part of this resolution is that it brings down the decision-making process to the municipality. In time of disaster, whether it is a tornado or a flood, a lot of damage is done in terms of roofs being removed, floors being skewed and walls being out. The basement may be flooded with water and mud. Heating systems are knocked out. All sorts of things happen that make it impossible for people to continue their normal habitation or their normal life.

One of the things they have to do is to respond, and they have to respond immediately. In other words, they cannot wait until such time as some government official decides, “We are going to provide you with assistance,” and makes a public statement. Then a man has to try to get the money, or perhaps the promise of money, to try to repair his roof. Most people do not operate with thousands of dollars in the bank where they have an emergency fund to draw on to replace a roof that got blown off a day or two before, to clear out their basements, to replace a furnace, or to do all sorts of repairs needed after a disaster.

Therefore, the fact that the municipality would have the responsibility to administer this kind of fund is a very attractive idea, because the people are closer; they also know the situation a lot better. We also have to recognize the fact that the municipality has the resources. Most major municipalities in Ontario, certainly the urban ones and many of the rural municipalities, have the resources to implement some kind of relief program provided they know the funding is available. There is a building department in every municipality. It has its building inspectors.

The city engineer is available, and he has a staff. Those people can help provide immediate assistance to people in the community.

4:30 p.m.

There is the city works department, which also has trucks, bulldozers, forklifts, front-end loaders and so on. There is equipment available and skilled staff. There ar