Hansard Transcripts 1979-Dec-18 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Swart: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, in a delayed reply to a question of mine, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations gave incorrect information to this House, inadvertently I am sure, and in so doing attacked, I suggest, my integrity.

I will supply him with the simple corrected math and he would then perhaps like to correct his statement. He said one litre of US Miracle Whip at $1.31 should have been $1.13. I will send this over to him.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I will stand by what I said yesterday.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

REVISED BUSINESS CORPORATIONS ACT

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, today I am making available for comment a proposed revision of the Business Corporations Act.

The act originally came into force on January 1, 1971, and introduced for the first time anywhere in Canada the concepts of the one-man business corporation and incorporation as a right. Last May we amended the act to facilitate over-the-counter incorporation and to provide a means of speedy incorporation for the business community. Apart from housekeeping amendments, no further significant changes have been made.

Specifically, the act must be amended to make it uniform, where practical, with the Canada Business Corporations Act, which came in force in December 1975. That act, though modelled on our own, introduced new concepts and reflected growing public interest in the rights of minority shareholders.

In addition, the select committee on company law, in its 1973 report on mergers, amalgamations and certain related matters, recommended substantial changes to the act. Members of the legal profession, businessmen and the Trust Companies Association of Canada have also requested amendments which would overcome problems and correct deficiencies encountered in working with the act.

In March, the staff of my ministry drafted a proposed revision which was sent for comment to certain interested parties. A committee of the commercial, consumer and corporate law section of the Ontario branch of the Canadian Bar Association was appointed to review and comment on the proposed legislation. It was also reviewed by the corporation legislation committee of the Board of Trade, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario, by the Trust Companies Association of Canada and the law schools in Ontario. Revisions were made on the basis of comments received during the summer, resulting in the proposed draft I bring to the members’ attention today.

We are circulating this draft because we feel it is essential that a revised Business Corporations Act for Ontario be acceptable to the business community and its legal and accounting advisers, be workable and reflect the latest concepts in corporate law. Following this review, we will be in a position to introduce a bill incorporating the necessary changes.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO HYDRO EXPORTS

Mr. S. Smith: A question to the Minister of Energy, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister confirm if it is correct Ontario Hydro is selling surplus electricity to American utilities for as much as one cent per kilowatt hour less than Ontario consumers are paying? Is it also correct that some of this surplus power is being sold below Hydro’s production costs?

In this connection, is it also not true that American utilities buying this power are retailing it to their consumers at profit markups of as much as 50 per cent of their cost?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I have been awaiting a more detailed response from Ontario Hydro which has not arrived as yet. But certainly when it does arrive I will be glad to share additional information with the honourable member.

I am told, by way of a preliminary examination of the story which appears today in the Toronto Star, there is a comparison between the wholesale price of exports and the Ontario retail price, which makes the comparison more marked. Under the circumstances, if the Leader of the Opposition wouldn’t mind, I will wait until I get some further information from Hydro, which had not arrived at the beginning of question period.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: On a matter as important as this, while I realize it is not reasonable for the minister to have at his fingertips all information, I would have thought the minister would know. Is it the minister’s contention that it is justifiable to ship to American profit-making corporations at the same price charged to utilities here, if it is a question of wholesale versus retail?

Does the minister recognize the rural consumer who buys directly from Hydro is paying much, much more than these American utilities are paying by buying directly from Hydro? Why should it be that American utilities can buy the power more cheaply than our own consumers?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier there is an unfortunate comparison between wholesale export and Ontario retail prices. The information I have, and I want it to be accurate and I’m sure the Leader of the Opposition would want that, is, first, that Ontario Hydro does not sell power below production costs. In fact, the policy is not to sell below cost plus 10 per cent.

Second, the Star comments that, “Last year, Ontario consumers bought 88 billion kilowatt hours of electricity ... worth $1.8 billion.” Any pocket calculator shows that is 2.04 cents per kilowatt hour. The Star also notes that last year 10 billion kilowatt hours of electricity worth $290 million were exported. That averages to 2.9 cents per kilowatt hour. The Star’s own figures show Ontario consumers paid less than foreign customers.

Third, average production cost at Nanticoke is 1.6 cents per kilowatt hour, not 2.38 cents, as is claimed by the Interested Citizens Group.

Fourth, the sales to the United States are on a bulk basis, delivered at either 230,000 or 115,000 volts.

Fifth, sales to municipal utility customers include facilities to transform the electricity downwards to household levels and Hydro’s share of this is reflected in the cost to utilities’.

Sixth, the rural rate includes all the facilities to transform the power down to household levels and distribute that power to each household. These costs are reflected in the rate.

Seventh, the power exported is surplus to Ontario’s needs at that time and the sales, which are on an interruptible basis, are cancelled immediately if the power is needed in the province.

In the first 10 months of 1979, Ontario Hydro exported 10.4 billion kilowatt hours, worth more than $300 million, with a net return or profit of about $136 million so far this year. This margin affects rates to all Hydro customers. Without the export sales margin rates would be higher in the province.

Finally, Ontario Hydro must obtain a licence to export power from the National Energy Board. It must satisfy the National Energy Board that among other things the cost of energy to be exported must be recovered fully and, second, it must not be less than the price to Canadians for comparable service.

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think what I’d like to ask is really a supplementary. It may be in the way of asking your advice. When the further information comes to the minister, will he be making a statement? Can we ask supplementaries then?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, just to comment: The information which I’ve just shared in point form is the information which arrived between the main question and now. I’d be quite prepared to respond, or to attempt to respond, to any questions based on the information I’ve just shared with the House.

Ms. Gigantes: On a point of order: as the information which the minister has just given us almost amounts to a new statement of information from the minister, because this question has already been raised recently in the ministry estimates, I wonder if we could ask him to provide a copy of this statement to us.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I’d be very happy to see whether we could get some run off now. It was actually just a matter of point form in response to the story which appeared today in one of the Toronto papers, but I’d be glad to get the honourable member those points.

Mr. Blundy: I have a supplementary of the Minister of Energy. Given the fact it is commonly said in Sarnia-Lambton that 100 per cent of the production of the Lambton generating station is sold to Detroit-Edison, is the minister willing to categorically assure the users of Sarnia and Lambton that they are not paying more for hydro than is being charged to the Detroit-Edison Company?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I thought I handled that particular question, in so far as the story was concerned, in the comparisons. I would point out to the honourable member that as far as any comparison of monthly residential electric bills is concerned, if one were to look at the July 1979 figures it’s $28 in Toronto compared with $46 in Detroit. Certainly there’s a very remarkable difference as far as rates are concerned.

Ms. Gigantes: Supplementary: Could I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker, why it is that if Ontario Hydro is involved in a sale which involves selling bulk hydro on an interruptible basis to another utility which then sells it to yet another utility, Ontario Hydro doesn’t seek to get the middleman profits out of the deal by contracting directly with the final user?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Does the honourable member mean the residential user in the foreign jurisdiction? It obviously deals with the utility in the foreign jurisdiction which in turn deals with its own utilities.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary, the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. S. Smith: The minister has answered point by point an article which appeared in the Star. Actually, I did not ask him to do that. I asked him a specific question.

In particular, one aspect he has not addressed himself to is the question, not of what the users of Detroit-Edison pay, or what the users of Niagara-Mohawk Power pay, but of whether those utilities are retailing Ontario Hydro power to their consumers at a 50 per cent markup. What I’m asking the minister is whether he has information to confirm or to deny that particular possibility.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I have no information that would confirm that the assumption which the Leader of the Opposition has made is correct.

[2:15]

Mr S. Smith: The member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) would have asked a very important question on behalf of his constituents, Mr. Speaker, about the lack of transmission to the Ottawa area. I will ask a different question now there is no chance to get that on record.

OHIP PHYSICIANS’ DEBTS

Mr. S. Smith: A question to the Minister of Health: Since it has become apparent that of the $1.2 million still owed by physicians and practitioners to OHIP, $208,000 of that is unrecoverable because these doctors no longer reside in Ontario, is the minister giving any consideration to how to deal with that problem? Is he prepared, when doctors give notice of opting out of OHIP, for instance, to make sure that any debts they may have in this regard have been recovered? Is there any way he and other provinces could get together so a doctor can’t simply leave the province and leave behind a debt without any possibility of any attempt being made to collect that debt?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, first of all, once the MRC or the practitioner review committee has made a finding, the physician or the practitioner in question has the right to appeal. That, you will understand, not unlike legal matters involving the courts, can be a lengthy procedure, in which case we are not, as I understand it, in a position where we can legally begin to institute recovery. I suspect that that has contributed in many of the cases in which we are all interested.

I am advised by my officials in OHIP that in most cases involving a recommended recovery from the MRC or a practitioner review committee, once either an appeal has been foregone or the appeal process has been concluded, the recoveries are made, in the main, within a month.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, I address a question to the Minister of Government Services. The manager of the central collection services in his ministry has indicated that they do not pursue individuals who have left the province, other than by writing such individuals and advising them of their outstanding obligation. Is it the policy of the province of Ontario that when people owe money to the people of Ontario we have a collection agency in his ministry that basically just writes them to remind them of their debt, but makes no real effort to pursue them and to obtain recovery in the courts of other provinces or by any other means?

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Speaker, we do try to recover, but I think when the manager within my department was asked he mentioned that we didn’t have a very good rate of recovers? when the doctors in question go outside of the province. I don’t believe he said we wouldn’t try to recover, only that we didn’t have a very good record of recovery in those cases.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister, now that he has admitted that the provincial auditor was right, what is he going to do to recover that better than $1 million?

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: The figure I have is approximately $202,000 and, as I said, we will try to recover that. But as the manager said, we don’t have a very good rate of recovery when they leave the province. That is not to say we won’t try and put forth all the effort we can to collect those funds.

Mr. S. Smith: I guess this is by way of supplementary, but I really want to correct what the minister has said. I have a quote here attributed to the manager of the collection services. It is possible he has been misquoted, but it is in the provincial auditor’s report and it says, “They do not pursue individuals who have left the province, other than by writing such individuals and advising them of their outstanding obligation.”

Why would that be a policy? If it is not the minister’s policy, would he please state what his policy is? Does he hire lawyers in the jurisdictions to which these people have moved? Does he try to take them into court in those areas as most businesses would try to do? Why doesn’t he try to collect debts, both on behalf of other ministries and on behalf of the crown generally in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the honourable Leader of the Opposition and all the other members that we will try and do our best to collect these debts. I would think, as you look around to some of the other debts that we collect, we do have a pretty good rating.

Mr. Foulds: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment.

Mr. Conway: Does organized labour really want Bob Rae?

Ms. Gigantes: Do the Liberals really want Pierre Trudeau?

Mr. Foulds: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could at least ask the government members to join with me in a moment’s silence for our colleagues in the Liberal Party.

Mr. Speaker: Now that your privilege has been taken care of, will you ask your question?

Mr. Peterson: Why have you got Michael Cassidy tied up in the basement?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Now you will be running around the province saying that you believe in the resurrection and the life. That is going to be tough for you, really tough for you, Stuart. It is a conversion.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Community and Social Services says that we must believe in the resurrection and the life, or something of that kind, in keeping with the season and all that. The real problem we have is we are among the very few people in Ontario who actually believed his leader when he said that Joe Clark was raiding the province of Ontario. We will be working against Mr. Clark.

Mr. Speaker: Now back to the question period.

Mr. Foulds: The spirit is indeed upon us.

Mr. Pope: What is the oil price policy in this election? Have you decided yet? Tell Bob Andras.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The real election is out there. This is the question period.

URANIUM MINING BUFFER ZONES

Mr. Foulds: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment, who I am sure is waiting in eager anticipation.

In view of the very strong recommendation made by the Environmental Assessment Board in its final report in May of this year on the expansion of the uranium mines in the Elliot Lake area -- the recommendation that further development of residences within two kilometres of tailing areas not be permitted -- and in view of the minister’s own communication to the Steelworkers’ representatives in Elliot Lake that “it might be prudent to bear in mind the Environmental Assessment Board’s categorical recommendation on this issue,” doesn’t the minister think it is prudent at this time to step in directly and declare a clear policy implementing that EAB recommendation in view of Rio Algom’s reapplication to the Elliot Lake town council for rezoning in order to build bunkhouses in the two-kilometre zone?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think I was more intrigued with the point of privilege than I am with the question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Foulds: Maybe you should be more intrigued with the question, as a minister.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Well, it didn’t get the same response.

We will, as the member knows, prepare a draft response to the report and if he is asking me to take another look at that particular section we are prepared to do so.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The minister does understand, does he not, that he did not reply to that recommendation in his response at all? There is no reply from the government. Surely the minister must be aware that during the course of the hearings and subsequent to the hearings construction of bunkhouses was going on in that two-kilometre zone, construction that is now being objected to by the Steelworkers. Doesn’t the minister think it is about time he made a firm stand on that matter?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, I simply said that is a very large report with a great number of recommendations. If he wishes me to take another look at that specific item, we will.

Mr. Wildman: Wouldn’t the minister agree that while he is looking at it again, as he suggested he would, and until such time as his ministry is ready to make a response to that recommendation as well as others, Rio Algom should cease and desist from further construction within the zones prohibited, or recommended for prohibition by the Environmental Assessment Board?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I am afraid the member is making the assumption that second look would take a long time. Not necessarily. I’ll get back to the member in due course and give him some indication.

Mr. Foulds: Is the minister not aware that in the health and Safety estimates of the Ministry of Labour last night, spokesmen in that ministry considered the two-kilometre buffer zone inadequate? Isn’t it about time the minister had a program for monitoring the present bunkhouse facilities in that zone, for establishing a firm buffer zone and for an orderly phase-out of the construction that is already in that zone? Isn’t it about time he had a program?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: No. It is reasonable to tell the member I was not aware of the comments of last night in that committee. I am sure, in due course, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie) will make me aware of it. Now that notice has been served I will accept it and will check that out. There is very little more I can say than what I have already said in answer to that question.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you. By the way, that was a too-conservative buffer zone the Ministry of Labour people were talking about.

EMPLOYMENT IN FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr. Foulds: I would like to ask a question of the Treasurer. In view of the slowdown in housing starts because of the high mortgage and interest rates and the adverse effect that is having on the woods industry in northern Ontario, can the minister tell us what steps, if any, the government is planning to avoid the 30 to 35 per cent layoffs predicted in the woods industry by Mel Soucie, the northern economics officer of the federal Ministry of Employment and Immigration, and Tulio Mior, the Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union president?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the honourable member knows the great slump in the market is basically in the US. The great percentage of the lumber produced is going to the US, therefore any action taken in Ontario would not affect the eventual consumption at all.

The slump in Ontario housing is more related to demand for starts than to any other single factor. I suggest that the figures I have seen recently from the real estate boards have shown that sales of housing in Canada have stayed amazingly buoyant. I even saw figures for Windsor that were high.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: In view of the absence of a federal government, does the minister not think some initiative could be taken by the provincial government at this time, particularly in terms of improving Ontario’s building code in energy-efficient standards so that some crash winter works program could take place in construction over the winter months to take up at least some of the slack?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I assume the member is talking about amendments or adjustments to existing housing rather than brand-new starts, is he? Those kinds of things do need to be looked at. An expansion of the CHIP program was promised and perhaps even its jurisdiction changed when the federal budget was being discussed.

Mr. Roy: There was nothing in the federal budget about that.

Hon. F. S. Miller: They said they would be putting money into that kind of a program -- expanding the CHIP type of program. I am almost sure it is in the basic text. There was some discussion whether it should remain federal or become a provincial jurisdiction.

It is the kind of thing I have to consider as I am going through my warm-up to my own budget. It is going to be even more difficult, I am sure members will appreciate, this year. No matter how I liked or disliked the government’s budget, I now don’t have any budget to guide me while I do my own.

Mr. Foulds: It will always be difficult. But doesn’t the minister realize the problem is immediate, over the next few months? Does he not realize the waferboard plants at MacMillan Bloedel and at Great Lakes have already given notices for two- or three-week layoffs starting December 23 that affect 300 workers. There are projected layoffs in Geraldton. Is there nothing that the Treasurer or the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) plan to do over the next three months?

[2:30]

Hon. F. S. Miller: I cannot say there’s nothing. A great deal of the export of those products is to the States. I recall the company in Atikokan -- I don’t know how it’s doing -- Pluswood Manufacturing, which told me that something in excess of 80 per cent of its production at one time was going to the States. It’s awfully hard to replace that kind of a share of your market. Virtually all of the material I have seen coming from our new mills in northeastern Ontario has been bound for the northeastern United States.

One of the things I am happy to see is the comparison in the cost of western plywood with eastern chipboard and flakeboard and particleboard; our product is coming out on the good side. While there is a declining market it is interesting to note that one or two companies even at this moment are considering installation of extra capacity because they do see the long-term market as being good.

SOYBEAN PRICES

Mr. Ruston: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Has the minister taken any action yet to resolve the problem of the soybean industry in Ontario as to the subsidy being paid on rape-seed coming into Ontario by the three prairie provinces? It comes into Ontario for $30 a ton and soybean oil goes out at $73 a ton.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Earlier this year when the soybean processors and growers got together they recognized that the subsidy on the rape-seed was making it very difficult for them to compete on the local market. At this time the soybean pricing people got together with the federal Minister of Agriculture. In turn, the minister appointed a committee and this committee went into it in detail. The effect is that it doesn’t leave any room for the soybean producers to keep up with the prices.

This committee suggested to the federal Minister of Agriculture several weeks ago that consideration be given to give the same subsidy to the oil produced for export by our soybean producers. The federal minister went into this in detail and has concluded that if he starts subsidizing our soybean oil, he would be getting into difficulty with the American soybean industry. It would appear that we are hooked with this problem for an additional three years because of a program initiated by the government of a few years ago.

Mr. Kerrio: That’s pretty weak.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Maybe it’s pretty weak, Mr. Speaker, but it’s factual.

Mr. Ruston: Supplementary: Since the program is also in co-operation with three Conservative governments and one NDP government, surely the Minister of Agriculture and Food, acting for the farmers of Ontario, should have a little power to go to Ottawa and tell them to start changing something.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well what the agreement is. He knows full well the restraint programs that our federal colleagues have been carrying out and he knows full well that there is just not the money for the subsidy that we think the soybean producers should get.

AID TO CHRYSLER

Mr. Cooke: I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Tourism. In view of the fact that yesterday’s Financial Post carried an article indicating that according to Ontario government estimates, a Chrysler bankruptcy would push unemployment in Windsor to 40 per cent; that 15,000 direct jobs would be lost and about 30,000 jobs indirectly lost; that UIC payments as well as lost revenue would cost governments $1 billion; in view of the fact that there is a great deal of uncertainty in Windsor right now as to whether or not the payroll of the workers will be met after January 15, would the minister clearly get that information and present it in a statement to the Legislature before we adjourn Friday for Christmas so he can assure and reassure the people of Windsor and the retailers in Windsor who are very much afraid of what’s going to happen over the next few weeks, especially during the Christmas season and with the uncertainty that’s affecting the retail industry even more? Would the minister make a statement?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would be happy to rewrite and present the statement for this House. I can tell the member that the statement would roughly confirm the figures he read into the record a moment ago. The information he indicated a moment ago is basically accurate. The estimates made by the federal government and by ourselves indicate that would be the impact of Chrysler of Canada going down. Anything I might add by way of a statement would only confirm those figures and the member may take this answer as a statement as to the impact of Chrysler going down.

I can tell the member that it is because of the impact he has just stated, in terms of unemployment and the cost to the taxpayers in the event Chrysler went down, that we have -- just to clarify the record -- strongly supported proper and carefully considered assistance for Chrysler, in the event Chrysler Corporation in the United States is saved by the Congress of the United States.

I should add that my information is that Congress is scheduled to finish this Friday and take its customary one-month break. Lord knows why it is such a short period of time, but they take only one month off. I am informed that if the Chrysler legislation does not pass the Congress by December 21, it is likely that Congress will be reconvened in the first week of January solely to consider the Chrysler situation. So if there is assistance by the American government it will be in place before the date the member referred to, which would be the date when Chrysler may run out of money.

Mr. Cooke: Supplementary: Could the minister make a statement and specifically give us the details on the financial situation and the payroll, in view of the fact that when we contacted Chrysler Canada this morning, the public relations people had no idea what was going on and referred us to UAW local 444 and said they would have more up-to-date information?

Secondly, would the minister make a statement as to what the Ontario government position is on the bottom line, on what conditions he wants to see to protect the auto workers of this province in any federal government assistance to Chrysler in Canada? We have not heard that kind of information from this government and its role in the negotiations is fuzzy, to say the least.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: With respect, we went over the matter of Chrysler in my estimates; we have gone over Chrysler here on several occasions in the House. I know it is easy for the member to say our role is fuzzy. I have made it quite clear that no government could have had more input into the national government discussions than we have. No government could have given them more specifics as to what we will require in the event any Ontario taxpayers’ funds are required.

There have been no direct negotiations between ourselves and Chrysler because those negotiations would not be very useful unless the main negotiations between the national governments are in place.

If the member would be happy to have me take the time tomorrow or on Thursday to give a statement to the House reconfirming the statistics and the position we would like to see develop and the position we have been taking, I will be happy to accommodate him.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary: we would certainly look forward to such a statement from the minister. May I ask the minister whether he has informed the people in Ottawa that any participation by Ontario -- a participation which we support, by the way -- would be accompanied by the placing on the board of directors representatives of the government of Ontario, to be sure that the money being utilized is utilized basically in the long-term interest of the people of Windsor, as well as the people of Ontario generally; that none of the funds find their way across the border; that parts are sourced properly in this province and in this country, to be more specific?

In general terms, is the minister prepared to make that demand as one of the contingencies upon which any assistance would be based, that is representation on the board of directors?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We haven’t given consideration to that particular item at this time. I should say, ultimately, if we were to consider that it would only be something we would require in the event that we had any reason to believe there was an opportunity for the funds to slip away to the United States or that they not be applied for the purposes for which we have given the money.

Mr. S. Smith: Look what happened in England.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, but I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that he didn’t make that request at the time we gave a grant to the Ford Motor Company.

Mr. S. Smith: It’s a totally different situation.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is not a bit different in terms of the participation of the government of Ontario.

Mr. S. Smith: Totally different; it’s the same people who took money and left England.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We have made it quite clear that before we would commit any grant dollars from this province we would have to ensure that Chrysler had received enough financial assistance for it to be viable for the next period of time.

Given a healthy company or a company that had a reasonable prospect of being healthy I have made it quite clear that we would approach it on basically the same grounds as we approached the Ford situation which was, given a company which is looking at some new investments in this province, what kind of direct grant or other assistance might we give in order to get specific new investment in this province?

I’ve made it quite clear that we were not looking to assist in any prop-up mechanism. We were not there to stuff money into Chrysler in order to make sure it gets over its short-term financial crunch. The role of this province would be direct investment to ensure new plants, overhauling of old plants and ensuring that those jobs would remain in those modernized plants. Given that situation --

Mr. S. Smith: Watch them like a hawk.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I say to the Leader of the Opposition, at the time of the Ford situation, which was the equivalent because we were giving money for a new plant equally, he didn’t raise that situation.

Mr. S. Smith: Come on, all you have to do is make sure they build the plant.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Leader of the Opposition didn’t say we needed a position on the board to make sure the Ford Motor Company used the money for the reasons we set out.

I should also remind him -- before he runs out to the TV cameras -- that what we did in the Ford Motor Company situation was simply have them draw down the money as the work commenced on the factory. I know if he’s been to Windsor he’s seen it under way. As they prove to us they’re doing the work, we hand over the money. It would be the same sort of situation with Chrysler.

If the member perceives that the NDP position -- having our people on the board -- is receiving any sort of public acceptance then I know he will adopt that position, so I’m not surprised. He didn’t take it at the time of the Ford grant. He shouldn’t adopt it now just because the NDP position seems to be currying some favour with the public.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of the Environment has an answer to a question asked previously.

CANADA METAL COMPANY LIMITED

Hon. Mr. Parrott: In response to a question asked yesterday by the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) regarding the Canada Metal Company, the first deadline on the Canada Metal control order was December 15, 1979. The member is aware of that.

The company was to submit complete results of stack emission tests on the RotoCast operations, which is the brass foundry segment of their plant. They submitted some preliminary data for the test results last week. The final completed report and test results were delivered to the central region on Monday -- that is two days after date. Ministry staff is now assessing this report to check its accuracy and to see if the lead emissions from the brass foundry are significant.

If the test results indicate that the total lead emissions do not comply with the Environmental Protection Act then a bag house or equivalent control mechanism must be installed on the Roto-Cast section by March 31, 1981. The control order was issued on November 15 and the final completion date of all aspects required in the order is June 30, 1981.

In summary, they did comply with the first date save for two days and, of course, we were quite prepared to accept that two-day delay.

Mrs. Campbell: Supplementary: When would the minister’s staff be in a position to report to the minister, and through him to the House, on their findings as a result of the study of the data supplied?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, if the member would accept it it will be certainly after the House adjourns for this session and before we reconvene for the next. Therefore, I’ll be quite prepared within the month of January to supply that information to the member in a personal way by letter.

ALLEGATIONS RE BRANT COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General relating to the allegations made by the member for Brantford (Mr. Makarchuk) about improprieties in the spending of the Brant Board of Education.

Since, according to the member for Brantford, the basis of the charges was in information provided for him from the local crown attorney, can the Attorney General make a statement to the House about any such information? Since the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) said yesterday that anyone who has information about this matter should bring it forward, would he not think the same advice should apply to him and his officers?

[2:45]

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am not aware of the member’s allegations in detail with respect to the alleged financial impropriety. I thought from the member’s question yesterday to the Minister of Education that there had been some suggestion of an investigation of a criminal nature being conducted into the affairs of this particular board of education. I have confirmed overnight that at no time has there been any such investigation and at no time has the local crown attorney suggested such an investigation. He assures my office that at this point he has absolutely no reason to believe such an investigation is warranted.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Will the Attorney General then explain the basis of the statement made by the member for Brantford that the information came to him from the crown attorney?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Again I am a little handicapped, not knowing precisely what the member for Brantford said. I do know there was a conversation on some social occasion between the member for Brantford and the local crown attorney about the overall administration of the affairs of the board of education.

I have not spoken directly to the crown attorney involved but our director of crown attorneys has spoken to him and has been assured that at no time did the local crown attorney suggest any impropriety that would involve any degree of criminality.

Mr. Nixon: An additional supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister not think he should consult with the Minister of Education since this is an important matter brought forward publicly as an allegation, without any foundation that I am aware of, by the member for Brantford? Would he not think the air should be cleared in this respect, particularly since one of his employees, the crown attorney, has been involved in almost every press report?

Mr. Breithaupt: Is the conversation denied?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No. There was a conversation in general about the board of education, but there was no suggestion that there was a criminal investigation or that any would be warranted. It was the suggestion that the local crown attorney may have made such a statement that gave me great concern.

The Minister of Education did bring this matter to my attention towards the end of last week. I am just not sure in what manner the member wants me to clear the air. My concern was and is whether or not the local crown attorney had suggested a criminal investigation should be undertaken, or was in fact in place. I have been assured that at no time did he suggest any such investigation had taken place or should take place.

Beyond that, I just don’t think what the local views might be as to the effectiveness of the local board of education really falls within my purview.

AUTO INDUSTRY LAYOFFS

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Ministry of Industry and Tourism. Is the minister aware that as of today we have about 1,500 auto workers on layoff in the Oshawa area, 210 on indefinite layoff at Houdaille Industries in Oshawa and another 300 indefinite and 1,000 temporary layoffs at the Chrysler trim plant in Ajax? If he is aware of those layoffs, would he share with us what contingency plans he has for these two major parts plants in the Oshawa area?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Ministry of Industry and Tourism doesn’t have programs to supplement wages, if that is what the member is looking at. He may direct that sort of question to a reference under either the union contract or to the federal government Department of Labour.

We have no programs which are tilted towards supplementing income when there is a layoff period.

Mr. Breaugh: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister then saying that he has made no recommendations about a transitional assistance benefits program for the area, or that he has not attempted to get new contracts from the parts sector for either one of these two plants, or that he probably doesn’t give a damn at all?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I’m not saying either two or three. In the case of two, of course we tried very hard to continue to get new parts programs for those plants. I would remind the member -- and I think I’m correct in saying this -- the last time I looked at the figures General Motors had been the best of the big three in terms of giving Canada a fair deal in auto parts. In fact, I think GM is in rough balance in terms of auto parts, under the auto pact. GM is looking after their Canadian responsibilities pretty well, more or less, in terms of auto parts and such things as might help in those plants.

In terms of item three, I can assure the member I do give a damn and we’ve spent a lot of time looking into the situation and talking to everyone involved.

In the case of the first item, which was a TAB program, as the member knows that was a federal program which was instituted several years ago -- I think it was either 1974 or 1975. In those cases, the situation, in terms of sheer numbers, was a lot more critical than the situation is at the present time.

As the member has acknowledged, some of those layoffs -- 1,000 of them, I think -- are temporary and they will depend, literally, on how sales go from week to week in North America. There is little we can do about the sales of GM throughout North America.

LAKE SIMCOE-COUCHICHING REPORT

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. Will the minister advise the House as to the status of the Lake Simcoe-Couchiching report, which was completed last April, after two years of meetings? Has it been presented to cabinet? If not, why not?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: No, it hasn’t been presented to cabinet as yet. I guess the only defence I can offer as to why not is because so many other things have been at cabinet. Hopefully, that will get to cabinet and a decision will be made in the month of January.

There was some work required of our ministry prior to submitting that report. I had a visit with the appropriate staff some time last week. It is in hand and it should be going forward to cabinet in the month of January.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Why, during the preparation of the strategy report, did officials of the Ministry of the Environment push for the target of 103 metric tonnes as the maximum phosphorus loading limit for Lake Simcoe when the report itself makes it clear that this target is self-defeating?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: As I recall discussions both with the committee and among ourselves, I don’t think it is quite appropriate to say we pushed for that 103 metric tonne limit. I think we were aware of the tremendous difficulty of getting below that figure.

As a matter of policy, we would like to be below that figure. There was a great number of people who could certainly support a lower number than 103 metric tonnes. As a matter of policy, so would we. It’s easy to accept that position. We also have to recognize the tremendous costs that go along with it.

Before the member asks me I will also say we recognize the tremendous cost if we don’t. I don’t deny that.

Consequently, because of an excellent presentation by the local committees to a cabinet committee and with the help of the other ministries we’re going to try to respond to that report in detail in the near future. I don’t want the honourable member to take it as read that we’re supporting the 103 metric tonnes as a ministry position, even though logic could assume that from the initial discussions. It is my personal belief that we should do better than that.

MEDICAL SERVICES IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Wildman: I have a question of the Minister of Northern Affairs. Is he aware that the Lakehead Social Planning Council has just published the findings of its health transportation survey showing that in 1977 750 Thunder Bay district residents had to travel to Toronto and/or Manitoba hospitals and 183 to Minnesota hospitals for care, and that it has recommended that OHIP pay for round trips for patients and escorts?

Is the minister also aware that his colleague, the Minister of Health, in a letter to me has again refused to even consider having OHIP cover these costs? If so, what measures is he, as the minister responsible for co-ordinating government policy for northern Ontario, prepared to take to assure equal access to specialized medical care for residents of the north?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, let me point out to the honourable member that I have not seen the report to which he refers. I would say to him that it’s not necessary for the people of northern Ontario to go to Minnesota -- to other parts of Canada, yes. I do realize there is a great attraction there with the facilities at Rochester, Minnesota. I think there is a need for the facilities and the expertise there.

What we can do with the excessive costs is something we have been looking at for considerable time within my ministry. We have not had any direct contact with the Ministry of Health but I can assure the honourable member we will be discussing it with them.

Mr. Wildman: Supplementary: In contacting the Ministry of Health the minister may find that his colleague believes nonemergency trips are a social problem rather than a medical problem and thus should come under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Community and Social Services. If that is the case, if that’s the government’s position, what action is he prepared to take in getting these two ministries together to implement the report’s recommendation that either the government establish a regularly scheduled monthly or bimonthly air or land shuttle service to transport non-emergency cases, or that a budget be provided to the Thunder Bay transportation officer for transportation costs for non-emergency cases?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I think the honourable member is very much aware that there is excellent air transportation services throughout all of northern Ontario. There is no necessity for the special type of service to which he refers. We will be looking at the whole aspect of the needs of northern Ontario as they relate to the very special cases and when there are emergencies.

CALAND ORE COMPANY LIMITED

Mr. T. P. Reid: I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. Has he, the Minister of Northern Affairs, the Treasurer, or the Premier (Mr. Davis) been in touch with Inland Steel Company in Chicago in relation to Caland Ore Company Limited’s premature closing down in Atikokan? Has he been in touch with that company to ask them to continue mining until that ore body at Atikokan is completely mined out? Has there been any discussions at all with them?

Hon. Mr. Auld: There have been discussions with the local manager --

Mr. T. P. Reid: Nat Scott.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Yes, Mr. Nat Scott. I believe some of my officials have been or are in touch with Inland Steel in the States. I haven’t any results to report, other than the fact that originally they indicated that because of the softening of their market to the US automotive industry the operation of the pellet plant was going to be shortened, as the honourable member is aware, and will probably close at the end of April or early May, rather than later in the summer as had been anticipated several years ago. I will be delighted to report to the House any further news as it comes along.

[3:00]

Mr. T. P. Reid: Supplementary: I trust the minister will pursue this as aggressively as he can. Can he report, as I asked in a letter to him, on exactly how much mineable or economic ore is left in the ore body and will not be mined at all by Caland and will be left there and become completely uneconomic for any other mining company to move in and mine?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I have that information. I think I can give it in a general way to the honourable member and the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds), who has asked a similar question.

The indication that was given of some 16 million tons of ore is incorrect. The studies done both by our own ministry and by Caland indicate that it was something in the order of 5,000 to 10,000 tons, without an incredible amount of stripping, because of safety reasons, because of the shape of the pit.

I think perhaps I would be wiser to make a statement on this than attempt to give a full answer when I haven’t got all the details in front of me. I am hoping to be able to do that before the close of the session.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable minister said he would be making a statement about it. If the member has a brief supplementary I will allow it.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister explain when he makes his statement why his ministry officials have tamely and so easily accepted the suggestion of Caland that there are only 5,000 to 10,000 tons of ore there, when Steep Rock Iron Mines, which owns the whole body and is leasing to Caland, as early as 1973 in their annual report to shareholders was claiming -- and I quote from memory but having read the report just yesterday -- that there would be 16.3 million tons of ore left when Caland terminated its operations in 1973?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I anticipate making reference to that question in my statement, as the honourable member may recall when we discussed this matter with Mr. Cook of the Steelworkers and others last week.

CLASS STRUGGLE GAME

Mr. M. N. Davison: Mr. Speaker, as a working class member of the Legislative Assembly I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Considering his well known and cosy relationship with the corporate elite of our society, has the minister been in consultation with, or did he indeed advise, the president of Eaton’s on that company’s banning of the game Class Struggle? Does the minister not find it ironic and peculiar that there are still big business games on the shelves that encourage people to lie, steal and cheat their way to the top, when this most excellent game has been banned?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I will give that question the consideration and the intelligence it requires.

PUBLIC HOUSING

Mrs. Campbell: My question is to the Minister of Housing. In view of the fact persons belonging to the third party have been organizing meetings across Metro, addressing Ontario Housing tenants and advising them, presumably as a result of the minister’s negotiations with Metro and a report prepared by Metro staff in conjunction with the minister’s staff, that the sale of Ontario Housing properties in Metro is contemplated which will necessitate the relocation of the tenants in such housing, would the minister make a clear and unequivocal statement in this House to calm the very real fears in the minds of people in this Metro area?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I had many discussions with the Metro chairman, the mayor of this municipality and with individuals representing other types of housing in the area of Metropolitan Toronto. It doesn’t stop at the borders of Metropolitan Toronto, it continues across Ontario as it relates to the 93,000 units the people of Ontario happen to own which house people less fortunate than some sitting in this Legislature.

It has been very clear that both provincial and federal policies on where we are going in public or publicly-supported housing over the next number of years is being analysed carefully. As I said at the time of the estimates of the Ministry of Housing, one thing we had been able to do over the last 20 years in Ontario, without the greatest foresight but with the assistance of federal, provincial and municipal governments, was to develop large housing projects which do not bring a great deal of credit to either the community they are in nor to the government that supplied them, nor ultimately to the tenants who reside therein.

With the non-profit housing corporations we have established in Ontario, through the municipalities and other organizations, we are looking at some way of reducing the number of public tenants we have in the various projects across Ontario, more specifically in the major cities.

It was not our intention, except where there might be some single-family ownership units provided by the province or through Ontario Housing Corporation which we could dispose of in the free market system, we might sell those units -- and I add the words “we might sell them.” However, we are looking very seriously at trying to achieve this goal, in conjunction with the federal government and in programs implemented recently in allowing people of higher incomes to remain within the public housing portfolio. We will get a better blend and a better cross- section of the community, and as a result we could find it will have rewarding experiences both socially and from a protection point of view.

We have indicated, federally, provincially and municipally, that if some of our units should be used for people of higher income factors within the public ownership portfolio at the moment, that a similar if not a greater number will be secured under contract arrangements with the private sector under rent-supplement programs, further dispersing people currently supported through the public purse into more projects and more areas of our community.

We hope to reduce some problems we have experienced in these large projects in Metro Toronto, Ottawa and other communities in the province. If we succeed in doing that we will have great rewards, first for the tenants who reside in the major housing portfolios and second to the coffers of the provincial and federal governments.

REPORT

STANDING RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Mr. Villeneuve from the standing resources development committee presented the committee’s report on the annual report of the Ontario Highway Transport Board for 1977, and moved its adoption.

On motion by Mr. Villeneuve the debate was adjourned.

MOTION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the House meet Wednesday, December 19, in the chamber at 10 a.m., with a luncheon interval from 1 p.m. until 2 p.m., with the routine proceedings to be called at 2 p.m.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved first reading of Bill 206, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of York Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wells: This bill is for first reading only at this time. It represents an amendment to the Regional Municipality of York Act requested by the region.

The proposed legislation would transfer the responsibility for solid waste disposal within the York region to the regional council. The legislation would grant an area municipality the right to an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board if it objected to the acquisition of a particular solid waste disposal site within the area municipality. We have included this appeal in the legislation so that the area municipalities in York region would have rights similar to those enjoyed by area municipalities wherever regional councils are responsible for solid waste disposal.

However, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott) and the government have stated their wishes to streamline the hearing process regarding solid waste disposal site hearings. It may be that in the future policy and legislation will be introduced where there would be only one hearing under either the Planning Act or the Environmental Assessment Act.

HOME BUYERS’ PROTECTION ACT

Mr. Isaacs moved first reading of Bill 207, An Act to provide Protection for the Buyers of Homes.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Isaacs: The Home Buyers’ Protection Act would require vendors and realtors involved with the sale of new and previously owned homes to provide buyers with a signed statement of facts about various aspects of the homes.

The bill provides that the seller of the home or the realtor acting on behalf of the seller shall provide to the buyer of the home a document which sets out the following facts: the zoning of the land; the official plan designation of the land; the type and quality of the water supply provided to the home; the type and condition of the sewage disposal facilities available to the home; any record of flooding which has affected the home; the storm drainage facilities provided to the home; the location of existing and planned schools in the area of the home --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Surely the honourable member knows that all that is required and all that is permitted is a very brief explanation as to what the bill is attempting to achieve. We don’t want you to read the bill.

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Speaker, there are just two more provisions that the bill contains, and they are distinct provisions.

Mr. Speaker: If you can capsulize it in one sentence I’ll allow it.

Mr. Isaacs: If the information required by the bill is not provided to the buyer of the home the bill provides conditions whereby the buyer may cancel the agreement to purchase the home.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the answers to questions 374, 378, 379, 380, 391, 392 and 393; and the interim answers to questions 375, 376, 377 and 381 standing on the Notice Paper. (See appendix, page 5679.)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the House I would like to suggest a slight change in the business of the House today from that which is printed on the Order Paper.

I thought we would proceed with some third readings and then second and third readings of some private bills, followed by Bill 204; and then go to Bill 127, An Act to revise The Pits and Quarries Control Act for this afternoon, followed then by Bills 202 and 203, either this afternoon or this evening as required. Then we would go to the budget debate.

[3:15]

Mr. Speaker: While I am wishing the first clerk assistant a happy birthday, maybe he could call the first order.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 77, An Act to amend the Crown Timber Act.

Bill 154, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth Act, 1973.

Bill 173, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Bill 174, An Act respecting the Composition of the Council of the Town of Midland.

Bill 176, An Act to amend the Architects Act.

Bill 180, An Act to amend the Unified Family Court Act, 1976.

Bill 194, An Act to amend the Ontario Unconditional Grants Act, 1975.

Bill 195, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Peel Act, 1973.

Bill Pr5, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.