Hansard Transcripts 1981-Apr-27 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the fourth report of the Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses with respect to indemnities and allowances of members of the Legislative Assembly.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

OHIP BENEFITS

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, later this week I will sign an agreement with the president of the Ontario Medical Association covering OHIP benefits payable for physicians' services for the coming year. It is based on the recommendation of Professor Paul Weiler who, as chairman of the Joint Committee on Physicians' Compensation for Professional Services, has produced a fact finders' report which I will table at the appropriate time in today's proceedings.

The agreement provides for an overall adjustment of 14.75 per cent in the OHIP schedule of benefits. The detailed adjustments of the individual items will be made by the Ontario Medical Association subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

Both Dr. MacMillan, the president of the OMA, and I would like to publicly commend Professor Weiler and the members of the committee for their report, which we believe will contribute to the high level of medical care which we all enjoy in this province.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TESTING OF PESTICIDES

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of the Environment in his new capacity. Would he comment to the House on the action his ministry will take in the light of the information revealed over the weekend that 89 pesticides, including many herbicides commonly used by the farmers of the province, have not been adequately tested? As a matter of fact, the testing has been shown to be fraudulent, or at least questionable.

How can we assure the users of these herbicides and those who would be exposed to them in this province that, in fact, they are not undertaking any substantial or undue risk?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable member may recall, this is not the first time concern has been raised with respect to this particular list of pesticides and herbicides. The matter arose, first of all, some few years ago and we have had ongoing communication with the federal government which, as the member may also be aware, is responsible for listing or not listing the particular chemicals in question.

The difficulty we have had in this regard relates primarily to the availability of information from the federal government. On numerous occasions we have requested specific information about the type of testing that had been done on the various chemicals. This information was submitted to the federal government for its consideration at the time of the original decision being made with respect to listing, and we have repeatedly been denied that information, most recently by way of a letter from the Honourable Monique Begin, the Minister of National Health and Welfare. She had been advised by the federal crown law officers that, because of the nature of the information submitted, it was confidential and protected. We have, therefore, only been able to receive assurances from the Minister of National Health and Welfare that its efforts are continuing to validate the testing that had been done, to try to identify if deficiencies in the testing exist.

As the member may know, the list appears to be being whittled down. Originally, the list we received contained some 97 chemicals; the most current one we have in our possession has 89, and I understand that now there is some discussion of the figure 79. But we are awaiting an updated list from the federal government.

The information we have at the moment, as I say, contains 89 and we requested, as recently again as this morning, information as to whether the figure 79 indicates that a further 10 have been tested, or checked rather, and the information reviewed and the list reduced.

We have also been requested by the federal government not to take precipitate action. I am obviously very much concerned about what, if any, effects there might be in a situation like this, but the Minister of National Health and Welfare has, in correspondence with my predecessor, indicated the concern about precipitate action and the impact it might have upon food supplies in this country.

We do not, ourselves, have the information on which to do any validation. The federal government has brought together a staff of experts, toxicologists from a variety of federal departments, and they are working on this at the present time.

If the member is asking me specifically what assurances I can give, frankly, the only assurances I can give are those the federal government has given. I can assure the member that it is an area in which I have a very deep concern about the question of safety. I will continue to review and monitor it as much as I can on a regular and daily basis.

2:10 p.m.

Mr. Nixon: Is the minister not aware that farmers such as myself would have read that list in the Globe and Mail this morning and picked out the chemicals we ourselves are ordering right now? Can he not give us more assurance, particularly through his advisory committee which has known about this for three years, that the officials of his ministry have done more than just sit back and complain about other levels of government not doing the testing that originally was done by the American parent companies in a fraudulent or, at least, a completely inadequate way?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I think the member ought to use the word in the singular. I believe the tests that are in question and about which questions have been raised relate to the activity of one particular testing company in the United States.

Mr. Nixon: They did most of the testing.

Hon. Mr. Norton: That is correct. I believe they did all of those on the list. The problem with respect to our own advisory committee is our getting the necessary information to do any evaluation, because that information is in the possession of the federal government. It is precisely that information which we have not been provided with, so that our advisory committee has been handicapped in terms of passing any assessment such as the member requests.

The closest I can come, or that my predecessor was able to come, to an assurance in correspondence with the federal minister is simply that there is no evidence of any harmful effect. They are now still in the process of checking, literally I understand, rooms full of test material and data that was submitted to them.

ONTARIO HYDRO RENTAL SPACE

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I would like to direct to the Premier on one of his favourite subjects, which is the provision of suitable staff facilities for the administration of Ontario Hydro.

Does it not bother him a bit that Ontario Hydro is leasing additional facilities in downtown Toronto at the corner of Bay and Dundas streets at $21 a foot to house an additional 1,000 to 1,500 employees when, over the past two years, it has been trying valiantly to rent its former headquarters which it abandoned some years ago and which they renovated for $5 million? Hydro has been trying to rent that at $14 a foot.

Would the Premier not feel there has been inadequate planning going back, let us say, a certain number of years but certainly in the last few months, which is going to cost the consumers of electricity funds they should not be called upon to pay?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) is quite prepared to deal with that question. He may be here later on.

I can only go by press reports, but my analysis of those reports indicated that Ontario Hydro entered into certain leases for the renovated old building at a time when the determination to move ahead with or expedite Darlington generating station, as requested by the government of Ontario, had not been made. As a result of that it is necessary, I gather from the press reports, for Ontario Hydro to house some of the people who will be involved in expediting Darlington in accommodation other than the accommodation it owns, which it has renovated and leased.

Mr. Nixon: Since the government has on two previous occasions expedited and then slowed down Darlington, why should the most recent expedition have electrified the leaders of Ontario Hydro to the extent they should have undertaken this when, even if it were finally decided the government had made up its mind it would not do another flip-flop on that matter, if they were going to hire additional technical people there is no reason for them to be in an office just under the Premier's window?

They could very well have been established at Pickering or somewhere else where they could get suitable facilities for less than $21 a foot. Why do they have to be maintained in downtown Toronto, which is usually reserved for Tory fund raisers and people like that?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I recall during the election campaign the leader of the Liberal Party was saying how little association the Tory party had with the business community and how he was going to sweep Bay Street. It is quite obvious that he swept Bay Street and lost everything else in the process. In fact, he is lucky he did not lose another half a dozen members in the process with the way he conducted his campaign. But we will raise that on another occasion.

I think it is fair to state as well that I can see a great deal from my window -- I know when the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk pulls up to the building in his car -- but I really cannot see the corner of Dundas and Bay from my window; it is not right under my window.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Don't you come by car? Well, I do too. The member has driven by me on occasion. He even waves on occasion as he goes by. His seatbelt is always done up and I have to make this abundantly clear. It is usually within the limits. I don't mean the seatbelt but the speed.

Mr. Breithaupt: -- stretched to the limit.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Is the member saying his colleague has to have his seatbelt stretched to the limit? I was talking about him, not me.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You are quite right, Mr. Speaker.

Also I would have to go back in history. I do not think the government really has flip-flopped on Darlington nearly to the same extent as the Liberal Party of Ontario has flip-flopped on just about every energy issue that I know.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) should be the last one to talk about energy. He got his party into a lot of trouble with his energy statements which conflicted with his leader's policy and which conflicted with every one of the other Liberal candidates.

Anyway, back to the question, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Energy will have all of the details and the explanation for the member.

Mr. MacDonald: The government's request to Hydro to accelerate the construction of Darlington is only going to increase the startup of Darlington by six months. And this planned expansion of personnel and staff by Hydro is to deal not only with Darlington, which isn't affected seriously by that six-month acceleration, but Bruce and Pickering as well.

So may I put to the Premier the question that was put earlier: What is there new in the picture that could not have been anticipated six months or a year ago before the government requested Darlington to be accelerated? If done then it would have been able to put this added staff in the old building at $14 a square foot, rather than into new quarters at $21 a square foot.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the House leader for the New Democratic Party asked why I didn't say at the beginning of my answer to the supplementary question what I said at the end. But in that the member has asked the same question as the acting Leader of the Opposition, I would hope the House leader will understand that his member has asked a question that is really very similar.

I would only say to the Hydro expert in the New Democratic ranks that the Minister of Energy I am sure will give him a totally adequate answer as Hydro has answered every question during his chairmanship of that committee -- as I understand it, usually to his total satisfaction.

Mr. J. Reed: Will the Premier tell us if this space is required specifically for the speedup of Darlington or is the requirement for other staff additions in order to catch up on work which was ordered stopped last fall?

While he is ruminating on that, could he undertake to find out how much empty space is still available in the original Hydro building?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to get all of this information. I have said three times this afternoon that the Minister of Energy will have this information for the members.

I know the member for Halton-Burlington said to the press a few days ago he would ask this question immediately he had an opportunity and this is his first opportunity because he has not been here yet, but his acting leader has already asked the question for him. I would be delighted to find out that information for him.

I do not know of any project that Hydro is starting again. My own guess is, as the member for York South has said, that all of the personnel will not be directly involved with Darlington per se. There are other Hydro activities, including some of the --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The power lines? The power lines will ultimately be up and the members opposite will all be enthusiastic in supporting their specific location whenever that location is determined. The only regret I have is that I do not think the location will go through London Centre, so the member for London Centre won't have anything to say.

HOUSING PRICES

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Housing about the problems that people on average incomes are having in buying homes in Metropolitan Toronto, including the fringe areas.

2:20 p.m.

Last week the minister thought the problem of affordability was restricted to core areas of the city. I would like to ask the minister how it is then that half the families in Metropolitan Toronto last year earned less than $27,000 a year in family income, and of the houses that changed hands in March of this year, only 17 per cent were sold at a price they could afford.

Does that mean that those families earning less than $27,000 a year are not to be able to have a home of their own? What action does this government intend to take in order to ensure that people on modest incomes, and not just those with high incomes, can have a home?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, in order to assess the situation which the leader of the third party is speaking about today, one has to consider whether the individual is a first-time home owner or is in the market for a second or third home. Unless one has all the facts and figures, it is very difficult to say that somebody with an income of $27,000 cannot afford some of the units which are available in this market.

In March, 1,700 out of some 5,000 units which were sold on the multiple listing service were sold at less than $60,000. In the same period, 311 people in this area bought homes at prices in the range of $40,000 or less. There are other statistics I could go through, but I am sure the members of this House are familiar with them.

We are not trying to exclude any particular income group from buying units. I have said before and I repeat that I do not believe that this government or any government has the right to try to interfere in the rights of the market to flow in accordance with the economy.

Just two and one half years ago, members on both sides of this House were complaining to me about developers in their communities going bankrupt because they could not move the stock which they had built. Some of them were selling at far below what it had cost them to build.

I think the question that is being asked has a number of ramifications and that it is simplistic to say that somebody with an income of $27,000 cannot afford to buy a home. I think one has to know a little more about that individual's financial position and whether it is a first time or second time purchase.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Last week, the minister said that affordability was restricted to the core areas of the city. Is he aware that in not one of the 50 areas into which Metropolitan Toronto is divided by the multiple listing service of the Toronto Real Estate Board was the average price of property sold below the $50,000 mark? Since the average home in any of those areas was not accessible to families earning less than the median income in Metro, surely there is an affordability crisis.

I ask the minister again if he is prepared to bring in a land speculation tax to stop the dizzy rise in the price of property. Is he prepared to take any other measures in order to protect ordinary working families whose only sin is that they didn't buy a house before the prices started to skyrocket?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what I said last week. The leader of the third party knows very well that to start talking about averages is not at all a realistic situation.

I met with the Toronto Real Estate Board this morning and reviewed with them their press releases on a monthly basis. To try to talk about averages really makes very little sense. They admit frankly that if you took an average of the real estate sold in the core area of this community and compared it with the average of the balance of the real estate that was sold, particularly single family units, there would be a drastic difference between those averages.

Those averages tell us virtually nothing. They tell us that perhaps the overall price of real estate is escalating as a result of the downtown prices. It is no different from averaging the price of a Volkswagen and that of a Rolls-Royce. It tells one extremely little.

I am not going to get into an argument about average real estate prices on homes because there is no rationalization for it at all in this market.

Mr. Speaker: Before continuing with question period, I would like to make an announcement.

As honourable members know, the Sixth Commonwealth Conference of Speakers and Presiding Officers is being held in Canada. I am sure the House will wish to extend a warm welcome to the many Presidents, Speakers and Clerks of parliaments who are in our galleries today. Their numbers do not permit individual introductions but I know you will give them a very warm welcome.

[Applause.]

HOUSING PRICES (CONTINUED)

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, if I may resume my question: Is the Minister of Housing not aware that according to the Toronto Real Estate Board the average price of homes sold in the east districts of Metropolitan Toronto in the first three months of this year was $73,989, and that the average price of the houses sold in the west district -- in both cases excluding the central core -- was $74,246? Is the minister not aware that to buy homes at that level at today's interest rates one requires an income of about $40,000 a year?

I ask the minister again, how can a working family earning $15,000, $20,000 or $22,000 a year afford that kind of housing when it is the only kind of housing available in Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I refer to the fact that averages are just one of the things that can be so misleading in the market of today.

Let us just look for a moment -- and I will take a few moments of the House's time -- at the multiple listing service listings and the real estate sales in March of this year.

Under $40,000 there were 311 sold, as compared to 184 in 1980; between $40,000 and $45,000, 228; between $45,000 and $50,000, 360 sold in the month of March in the current year. For $50,000 to $55,000, 377; between $55,000 and $60,000, 435; between $60,000 and $65,000, 374 units; between $65,000 and $70,000, 411; and between $70,000 and $80,000, 636. That is at the limit the leader of the third party is talking about at the moment -- the average individual, the average price. There are many that fall well below the average price and which are available to the average income earner in this province.

Mr. Ruprecht: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware that the 1981 inventory of new houses ready for occupancy is down 68 per cent in the last four years, and that the Ontario overall starts last year were the lowest in 14 years?

Is the minister still saying cheerfully, and I quote an article from the Toronto Star, "The day is fast coming when we could very well recommend to the Premier that the Ministry of Housing could disappear"? Is this the kind of policy the minister has been propagating in the last three days with his non-answers and his obfuscations, as I said earlier? Is he indicating to this House with this kind of policy that he wants to disappear, not only from his own seat here but from the very ministry of which he is the head?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, as I said a few moments ago, I recall over the last two and a half or three years in this House there were many problems in the construction industry with developers in London, Hamilton, Ottawa and in this particular market of Ontario that had more stock and inventory than they could possibly move. A number of them had to make assignments and went into receivership because there were no purchasers.

The ambition and desire of that industry -- and I support it -- was to try to move that dead inventory they had at some considerable expense to them. Frankly, the government through its mortgage corporation and so on tried to assist a number of them to stay in the business of the development of housing until things turned around.

The member speaks of their inventory being down at the moment. I recognize that fact, that the inventory in the last relatively short period of time has moved exceedingly well, but, I am told, there is still in the Metropolitan Toronto area something in the range of about a nine and a half month supply and in the outlying areas of Ontario something in the range of a three and a half month supply of housing available to the market at this time.

Mr. Philip: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: As the minister who only a few months ago appeared before a committee of the Legislature and decried the creating of ghettoes for the poor, how can the minister advocate a "no action" that in fact creates the kind of ghettos for the rich where only the rich can afford to live in downtown Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I have to say I find that question completely irrelevant to this discussion today.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, we will come back to this, because the Minister of Housing is abdicating his responsibility and so is the government.

OHIP BENEFITS

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question for the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker, arising out of the announcement of the settlement of physicians' salaries made in the House today.

According to the Weiler report, the increase in the price schedule that has now been agreed upon will generate an average increase in net income of $10,500 for full-time practitioners in Ontario. Since Mr. Weiler continues by saying that if the historical two per cent rate of increase in physician utilization continues unabated, the actual income increase will be closer to $12,000 in net income this year. Would the minister tell us whether we can assume that the doctors have agreed to terminate extra billing and opting out, and if not, given the generosity of this settlement, why not?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, we have discussed the latter frequently, and I think the honourable member understands why not, and the answer to the former is no.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, since the doctors' increase of $12,000 a year is equal to almost the entire annual earnings of the average hospital worker in Ontario, could the minister explain why the government did not insist in its negotiations with doctors that if they wanted to have a major increase in incomes and a catch-up, which is what they were seeking, from what they were getting before, the people of Ontario had a right to a quid pro quo, and specifically to the assurance that when they go to the doctor they will not be billed extra by the doctor because he has opted out?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable member will recall, we have discussed this matter in this House on a number of occasions over the last three years. On all such occasions I have indicated to the honourable member that in my view, and in that of my government, to follow the course of action he recommends would lead to a very serious disruption of our medicare plan, one which, in my view, would be irreversible -- not unlike what happened to his favourite province of Saskatchewan.

Second, I would point out to the honourable member that the government has been able, by means of working with the profession, to bring opting out in the province down steadily. In fact, in March, opting out dropped again, so the effective rate of opting out now is somewhere around seven per cent when one considers the percentage of the claims on the plan.

It is still my view that to follow the course of action the honourable member recommends would lead to the kind of ongoing confrontations, such as we have seen in other jurisdictions, which only undermine the quality of the health care system and lead to ongoing trench warfare which the public can only lose.

I would point out, while we are talking about the stability of the system, the kind of thing the honourable member proposed during the election campaign, of giving the doctors the right to strike, would do anything but stabilize our medicare system.

Mr. McClellan: The doctors do have the right to strike now, if I am not mistaken.

Supplementary to the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that according to the ministry's figures -- and the most recent figures I have, I am afraid, are May 1980, and I would be happy to be proved wrong, but assuming these figures are still valid -- there are no opted-in anaesthetists in Middlesex, Nipissing or Perth; there are no ophthalmologists in the plan in Etobicoke, Sudbury or Victoria county; there are no opted-in urologists in Peel, Halton, York region, Wellington or Etobicoke; and in Peterborough, Peel and Grey there is not a single orthopaedic surgeon still practising within the plan, can the minister tell us whether the announcement he has made today will make the slightest bit of difference in that thoroughly appalling situation?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Let me point out, Mr. Speaker, the honourable member perpetuates the folly of looking at the percentage of doctors billing the plan as the relevant standard. It is not the relevant standard. One has to look at the percentage of the claims on the plan which are extra billed, now at about 350,000 a day, which is down around seven per cent.

The fact that a physician is nominally opted out does not mean he is billing all of his claims at rates in excess of OHIP. There are a great many physicians in this province who have never been opted in and have always billed at, or close to, the OHIP rates. So one ends up with only about seven per cent of claims extra billed, and many of those are extra billed a nominal amount.

Second, because of settlements in the last couple of years we have been able to bring back into the plan, on a participating basis, an opting-in basis if you will, a great many physicians. That includes specialists as well as family practitioners, and I am optimistic that, just as in the last few years, the settlement we have arrived at will result in many more coming back in. There is no problem of access to the system.

Mr. Nixon: What about the commitment I seem to recall the minister making in the previous session when this matter was raised, that all public hospitals would have the basic specialities manned by doctors who would accept OHIP fees?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I think by and large that commitment is being lived up to. There have been a few isolated problems and we have again reminded the hospitals, which we rely on to work with their physicians, of this. Where we have individual complaints, which we do get from time to time, or complaints through the Ontario Medical Association, I think we have been able to work them out, with very few exceptions.

ASTRA/RE-MOR

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations regarding Astra Trust and Re-Mor Investment Management Corporation.

It was the recommendation of the standing committee on administration of justice on the last day before the dissolution of the House that:

"The committee regrets it has been unable to complete its inquiry. It believes a great deal of information remains to be placed on the public record, information which would clarify what went wrong in the Montemurro affair and why."

In view of the fact the committee recommended its inquiry be continued and completed should the Legislature and committee be dissolved, would the minister assure the House he will refer the Astra Trust/Re-Mor matter back to the justice committee forthwith, in order that the investigation can be continued?

If he is prepared to do so, would he also assure the House that all the documents secured for the committee through the Speaker's warrants, after considerable discussion and fight with the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), will be provided willingly to the committee so it can complete its investigation in an appropriate fashion?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I am not able to give either assurance. The matter will be considered on the overall question.

Matters that relate to mortgage brokers and other forms of licensing will be considered by the government in the next few months. It will take some particular form, but at this moment we do not know the form it will take. I would be interested in the member's observations on it. The preamble he has made this afternoon is an observation on it, but in relation to the committee itself, that committee, of course, came to a conclusion at the end of the last Legislature and presumably that is where it now stands.

Mr. Bradley: If this matter is referred back to the committee through procedures available to members of this House, would the minister assure members of the House that all the necessary documents would then be provided willingly by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations and any of its agencies as recommended under the Speaker's warrant?

Would he assure us that, despite the fact he now has a majority in this Legislature even though 56 per cent of the people of Ontario who voted did not vote for his party, he is still prepared to provide those documents for the committee willingly to show his good faith to all the people of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Walker: If the matter were to be considered by that committee, if it ever were to be referred back to that committee, if it were to be restruck under similar terms, and if the matters referred to it were similar to what the matters were when the committee was originally struck or originally charged with the problem, then undoubtedly it would have those papers.

We are not talking at this moment about whether that would be referred to the committee. The real question at the moment is now before courts and will be dealt with in that way. The matter of mortgage brokers and their relationship to the government, and the relationship of the government and the mortgage broker licence to the people, is another matter that will have to be considered in future. It may involve a committee and it may not.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Swart: Supplementary to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, Mr. Speaker: Recognizing that interim report recommended compensation to the investors, and recognizing the Premier has stated that the investors will be compensated if negligence is proved, he must be aware that section 8 of the Act states there can be no liability on the part of the officer of the government or, in fact, the government itself, unless bad faith is proved, which is a very different thing to negligence. Will he say to this House that he is prepared to waive that section of the act so that just negligence has to be proved and they will then be compensated?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, that very question was, in essence, posed to the federal government during a period of time when negotiations were under consideration. The fact of the matter is that the federal government advised us we would have to respond to all our defences or they would not be prepared to participate in any particular sharing of the expenses. I would think it is up to our friends across there in the Liberal Party to perhaps put a little heat on their kissing cousins in Ottawa to solve this problem.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) has the answer to a previously asked question.

AID TO PENSIONERS

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) asked the following question in the form of a supplementary: "Is the minister also seeking, as is the case in some instances, a rebate on a prorated basis for those people who have died during the last half of 1980?" Of course, the question had reference to the property tax grant.

The response, Mr. Speaker: In the case of a pensioner who died after he had applied for the 1980 property tax grant, the grant is not prorated. Where death occurred in 1980 after the July 1 implementation date of the grant program, but before the pensioner had applied for the grant, the estate of the deceased is entitled to a 1980 grant on a prorated basis, with the calculation based on occupancy cost attributable to the portion of the year the deceased was alive.

If there is a surviving spouse who is also 65 years of age or older during 1980, occupancy cost up to the date of death is divided between the estate of the deceased and the surviving spouse, keeping in mind that in many instances the estate and the survivor are one and the same. The surviving spouse can claim his or her own grant based on 50 per cent of the occupancy cost prior to the death, plus any occupancy cost incurred following the spouse's death.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Will the minister explain why the additional cheques were sent out to the people in regard to whom his ministry had to take such Draconian action to get the first cheques back that were sent out in error?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk is not referring to death; he is referring to the ones that were sent again. I think I answered that question last Friday.

As I indicated to the House at that time, over half a million cheques were dispensed earlier this month to seniors who had received, or were on the list to have received, grants last year. In some instances, it would appear to be a relatively small number.

Some of those who had received grants in error last year -- albeit they did apply for them, probably in all good faith -- did receive a supplementary 1980 interim grant. They had, in the meantime, been contacted by way of a letter which indicated that they had in error received a 1980 grant, and because of computer programming, it might be the case -- I quote a specific paragraph from the letter they received:

"Because interim grants are based on grants made the previous year, you may receive a 1981 interim property tax grant. If you do, please return it to us for cancellation."

There were people -- there is no doubt about it -- who had not been pulled out of the computer programming, but rather than hold up the system, hold up the 530,000 people who were anticipating these cheques, some of this did happen. Again, they have been notified and repayment or the return of the cheque is not anticipated to be a problem.

UREA-FORMALDEHYDE FOAM INSULATION

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health and it concerns urea- formaldehyde foam insulation in Ontario homes. In view of the health hazard that is becoming increasingly connected to this insulation, in view of the statement by the federal Minister of Health that she has discharged her responsibilities by banning the further use and by informing the public, and in view of the moral and legal responsibilities the minister opposite has as Minister of Health, will he commence a program at once of testing for formaldehyde gas in all homes in this province which have this foam insulation?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the advice I have had from the federal government is to the effect that the expert medical committee that assisted the federal minister in the evaluation of this material has not as yet determined that it is in fact an actual or potential hazard. It has apparently indicated the need for further information.

We are in touch with the federal authorities. In the meantime, we have kept the local health departments informed, the 43 municipal health units, as we have been receiving information from the federal authorities over the last number of months, going back to December when they put on the temporary ban and since then the permanent ban. We have made the municipal units aware of the availability of assistance from the Ministry of Labour to offer them technical assistance in dealing with individual complaints.

At this point I don't believe the federal government has completely discharged its responsibilities. There are a lot of unanswered questions, and we will be pursuing the matter with them.

Mr. Swart: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: May I send to the minister a letter from Mr. Paul Toderick of 765 Church Street in Fenwick whose family has had considerable health problems?

He will note this contains two reports. The minister will note the one report, dated March 17, 1981, and signed by the medical officer of health for the Niagara region, which states that tests taken for formaldehyde gas in Mr. Toderick's home show levels 30 times the limits recommended in the Canadian ambient air standards. He will note the other report, signed by the previous medical officer of health for the Niagara region, showed the minister and his government knew of these dangers as early as December 1979.

At that time the medical officer of health stated -- the minister will read this in the report -- that whenever a report of suspected formaldehyde release is received, the Minister of Health can order the Ministry of Environment to conduct tests. They may not want to be involved in homes, but their laboratory is obliged to assess.

Would the minister not think this risk, as documented by this letter and other letters that I have, is serious enough that the ministry should do the investigations into every home that has this foam installed in the walls, so that this kind of health hazard, which has now been documented fairly well in 1979 by a medical officer of health, does not continue?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I have not had a chance to read in detail this memo on file from the former medical officer of health, but let me say to the member that under the Public Health Act the medical officer of health has extensive authority to do what he or she considers to be appropriate under the circumstances.

I would repeat that it was the federal government that approved this substance for use in the Canadian Home Insulation Program specifically, and it was the federal government that, quite rightly, when it determined there might be a problem, put on a temporary ban and kept all the provinces advised of what it was doing. We in turn kept all the local health authorities advised.

I repeat what I said before: I don't think all the questions have been answered as to whether this is a health hazard and, if so, what the corrective measures should be. That is not as yet clear.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since the bad effects of this insulation depend upon whether or not it was properly installed in the first instance, particularly if it was installed below a certain special temperature, would the minister authorize his medical officers of health, through their staffs, to provide the kind of inspection that individual home owners must surely be looking for? It certainly does not seem to be provided at the federal level. If these people could phone the MOH office and have somebody come out and do an inspection, they may find their insulation is properly installed, and I think that is the case in more than 90 per cent of the installations.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the health units would not have, in their offices, the technical expertise necessary. That is why we pointed out to them several months ago, when we gave them the details of the temporary ban, that technical assistance was available from the Ministry of Labour. I would prefer to take the extra day or two to be certain of what the federal government's position is, and also the medical advice it has had, before we determine whether that is necessary.

HOUSING FOR SEASONAL FARM WORKERS

Mr. Sheppard: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food on seasonal housing. Could the minister advise the Legislature what he plans to do about needed additional seasonal housing for farm workers? Our farmers are dependent on a good supply of workers to harvest their crops and I believe good housing is important in attracting good workers.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, first, it is easy to understand why that party is over there. They really are not interested in the people of the province.

In answer to the question of the honourable member, we have worked out an agreement with Ontario fruit and vegetable producers whereby we will share the costs of seasonal housing for up to 10 employees. The total grant will be 50 per cent or $1,000 per unit, and we believe it will supply the necessary housing.

AID TO PENSIONERS

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Revenue following on the Ontario property tax grant scheme. As the minister is aware, some 2,000 senior citizens have had demands on them for repayment of the grant where those persons are residents of apartments owned by charitable organizations exempted from paying municipal property taxes. Will the minister look at section 9 of the act and inform the House whether the procedures under the act have been followed, especially as to whether notices in writing properly went to the applicants who were not eligible for grants, and advised those persons of their right to object to such a decision?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: I will look at the section and get back to the member accordingly.

Mr. Breithaupt: While the minister is doing that, will he review this letter, a copy of which I am sending over to him now? It was sent out the week after the election and brusquely demanded repayment. If the letters are not in compliance with the act, would the minister agree that these pensioners are eligible for the 1980 grant?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: I will look at the letter and respond at the same time.

AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Tourism. It concerns the document on the Tory Board of Industrial Leadership and Development. There is one quote regarding the auto industry that says, "There is good cause to believe that the worst is past."

How can the minister make that statement, in view of the fact that our trade deficit with Japan from 1979 to 1980 doubled to $854 million; our deficit with the United States is still over $2 billion; our world deficit is $4 billion; production at Ford Motor Company for the first three months of this year is down 23 per cent; production at Chrysler is down 22 per cent; total production is down 10 per cent, and the unemployment rate remains at about 25 per cent for auto workers in this province?

Is the only response to the crisis in the automobile industry the government's Automotive Parts Technology Centre, which was promised to three quarters of this province?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the member may recall that recently a lot more auto workers were laid off in this province than currently are laid off. In this province there is something like 8,900 workers currently on indefinite layoff; in the United States there are 180,000. So we are doing far better than the Americans in terms of our employment.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member's colleagues may not be aware of the situation with regard to plant closings, which sometimes they would like to believe occur only in Canada. Let me tell them a little bit about what has been happening if they want to compare where the various auto industries are.

In the United States, in terms of General Motors plant shutdowns, we had a Pontiac assembly plant shut down in Michigan. St. Louis assembly, St. Louis Corvette assembly, Detroit Cadillac engine plant, Flint foundry and Detroit Cadillac assembly have all closed down.

Would the member like the list of Chrysler plant shutdowns in the United States? They include Lyons trim, Michigan; Hamtrack assembly, Michigan; Fostoria iron foundry, Ohio; Eight-Mile/Outer Drive Stamping, Detroit; Missouri truck assembly; Warren RV assembly, Michigan; Huber Avenue foundry, Detroit; Cape Canaveral, Florida; Mack Avenue stamping, Detroit, and Lynch Road, Detroit. The total employment loss there was almost 25,000.

Ford plants closing in the United States were Los Angeles assembly; Mahwah assembly, New Jersey, Dearborn assembly, Michigan; Flat Rock foundry, Michigan, and Cleveland engine plant. Those are all the plants that closed in the United States auto industry.

What has happened in Ontario? Members will recall the great fuss in this assembly, and quite properly, over the loss of the Chrysler engine plant and the Ford foundry. I recall standing in this assembly and saying to the members that the Ford foundry plant was not closed forever, that it might well be cranked up again. I do notice that I did not get an open letter from the member or anyone else noting that the Ford foundry plant had reopened, as we indicated was a major possibility. At this date we have one major plant shutdown in this country as opposed to the list I read from the United States.

I think it is also important to note, and the member asked the question, why it was I had some optimism that we have bottomed out.

Mr. Laughren: That was not what he said.

Mr. Cooke: That was not it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is what the member said. He asked why we believe the worst is past. I can tell him one reason why we believe the worst is past: It is because this jurisdiction has done far more to rescue its auto sector than any other jurisdiction. We have the auto parts technical centre. We have SITEV America coming to Toronto instead of Detroit for its first show ever. We have perhaps one of the leading experts in auto parts working for this government in Paris and talking to the international auto parts people. We have major programs under the employment development fund which the member's party specifically opposed.

Last year we offered 20 loans and grants totalling $15.4 million to the auto industry; from Ontario Development Corporation and others, 13 loans and guarantees to the automotive industry. The total under those two programs was almost 5,000 jobs. We have had 73 major new auto plants or expansions in the past 24 months. Let the member show me another jurisdiction that has done that.

Finally, may I say one of the reasons I believe things are going to improve for our auto sector is that I read the special supplement in the Windsor newspaper. Why did they put out a special edition? It was because of the opening of the Ford V-6 engine plant, which is here expressly and only because this government took the initiative to put that major auto parts plant there and put in 2,000 jobs for the people that the member should be defending and protecting.

Mr. Cooke: It is too bad the minister does not put as much energy into getting jobs created in this province as he does into his long answers in this Legislature.

As a supplementary, I would like to ask the minister why he continues to have this optimism when the Ministry of the Treasury and Economics put out a study -- to which we never had a chance to get this minister to respond, because he refused to come to the select committee one week and the following week the plug was pulled and we had an election -- that indicates the Ford V-8 engine plants will be closing in Windsor and the V-6 engine plant this government talks about so often has a limited lifetime; that over the next three years the Chrysler car plant will be operating at minimal production and van production will be limited; that the American Motors car plant is likely to close over the next few years, and that the Holmes Foundry Limited plant is likely to close over the next few years.

3 p.m.

It also indicates that in the auto parts sector, where in 1970 Canada accounted for 70 per cent of the United States' imports of auto parts, in 1979 we accounted for 43 per cent. The report says, "If recent trends continue, Japan could displace Canada as the single most important supplier of automotive parts to the United States in the very near future," and its employment projections indicate a 35 per cent loss in auto jobs in this province.

How does the minister develop optimism from those kinds of statistics which were produced by his own cabinet colleague?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I believe the member was present when the report was tabled in front of the committee, or has taken the time to read Hansard when it was presented, so he knows it was a worst-case scenario developed by the Ministry of Treasury and Economics. It did not have the blessing of the cabinet or the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) of this province, as he made clear.

I know the member understands that any careful and cautious government does not simply rely on optimistic views of how the world might turn out; he always criticizes us for doing that. We can develop optimistic scenarios because we have done the homework, which includes looking at the worst-case scenario, the likely scenario and the best-case scenario. If the member is not too busy writing me open letters, I hope he will drop into the consideration of my estimates, where he will hear the best-case scenario. It may be informative for him.

Just to emphasize the point, may I say that the member and the select committee know the reference was to the worst-case scenario. It is the kind of thing a responsible government must do in order to know what the downside is and to develop programs that will ensure that that worst-case scenario does not develop. If he studies the figures, he will also note that, unlike every other jurisdiction in North America, to date we have avoided the worst-case scenario, and we will continue to do that.

Mr. Wrye: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that of all Ontario cities, Windsor has suffered the largest impact of this prolonged series of layoffs, especially at Chrysler, where, as the minister himself points out, the engine plant is going to close, throwing permanently out of work some 2,500 people, and the assembly plant has been cut back to a single shift and production at the Ford engine plant is only sporadic, is the minister now prepared to reconsider Windsor as a site for the auto parts technology centre, rather than putting it in one of the more politically favourable sites suggested by the government during the campaign?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I understand the honourable member is asking that question for reasons totally unrelated to political purposes for his own sake, that he thinks that is the best place to locate it for economic reasons. I am sure he has particular views on the situation.

May I say to him it is our view that the best two locations, from an economic point of view and as good business judgement, are the two places indicated. If the member or the city of Windsor believe they can argue successfully that Windsor is a better location, economically, for the location of that centre, we would be pleased to receive their submissions.

In fairness, I would not want to raise expectations for Windsor, because I should caution the member that the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development document was very carefully researched and drawn, particularly when it comes to the auto parts section. Therefore, I must caution the member that we, the Ontario Research Foundation and the auto parts people did a great deal of homework before deciding on Chatham and the Niagara Peninsula, which includes some opposition-held ridings, just to assure the member that politics had absolutely nothing whatever to do with this decision.

Mr. O'Neil: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Will the minister be recommending to the cabinet that the select committee on plant closings and employee adjustment be reconvened so that the final report can be brought in and some of these problems can be dealt with so that we do not encounter them again?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: My recommendations to cabinet are not something I ordinarily make public. The cabinet will have one position on that question.

Mr. O'Neil: What are the minister's personal feelings?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: What are my feelings on it? I will vent those this Wednesday or perhaps next Wednesday at cabinet.

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

TRANSFER OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. As a member of this assembly representing the largest constituency of francophones in Ontario, and also a very large agricultural area, I feel my privileges as a member have been abused. My community is outraged by the statements by the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) -- I will translate, after I read the text in French -- that "Un paquet de fermiers français n'y changera rien," which means in English, "A bunch of French farmers will not change anything." That was reported in Le Droit of Ottawa on Saturday, April 25.

Even if the minister is reflecting government policy, which I hope is not the case, I would request at the very least that he withdraw the statement and apologize to the Franco-Ontarian community of Ontario as he has already been asked by L'Association Canadienne-Française de l'Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, let us get one thing straight in this assembly. Nobody is telling me where to put juvenile offenders. Nobody is telling me where to move them. They will be moved when they have proper places to go. I realize juvenile offenders in a training school are not the most glamorous part of life in this province. Indeed, such a school may be unpleasant, but it is very necessary. I say to the member, neither he nor anybody else is going to send me a demand note telling me to leave there.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I will take the point of privilege of the member for Prescott-Russell under consideration.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, the minister has not answered as to whether, in fact, he made that statement. Nor, of course, has he apologized to the constituents if he has.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall making the statement "a bunch of French farmers." I referred to them as a French farm organization which sent me a telegram. I am not going to apologize to them. I want them to apologize to me in the Legislature. The member can tell them that.

Mr. Speaker: I repeat to the member for Prescott-Russell that I will take his point under consideration.

CAMPING ON CROWN LAND

Mr. T.P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order dealing with the present Minister of Natural Resources. My congratulations on his appointment. His predecessor, in the Natural Resources estimates before Christmas, gave me and the committee a commitment that he would have a statement in March on the use of crown land and, in particular, on nonresidents' camping for free on crown land. The then-Minister of Natural Resources, Mr. Auld, at that time indicated he would make a statement to the House in March in regard to this matter, which is of great concern to people in northern Ontario. Due to circumstances beyond our control we were not here. I wonder if the minister would indicate when he is going to make that statement.

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is, I have already reviewed the Hansard of the estimates committee last fall and I have been discussing the matter of a number of commitments that Mr. Auld made during the course of those estimates. We will be honouring the commitments. We are working on a number of them now. As soon as I can, I will forward them to the member.

PETITIONS

ANNUAL REPORT, MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AND COMMERCIAL RELATIONS

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker. I have a petition that reads as follows: "Under standing order 33(b). we, the undersigned, petition that the annual report of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations for the year ending March 31, 1980, be referred to the standing committee on administration of justice at the appropriate time." This is signed by at least 20 members.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS