Hansard Transcripts 1983-Jan-24 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. McClellan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I draw to your attention that there seems to be a new camera in the gallery which is strategically located in such a way that it can shoot only members of the government party and cannot possibly be shared equally by all parts of the House.

Second, I am not sure whether it is a regular part of the press gallery. Perhaps you would be kind enough to advise the House as to why the camera is there, for what purpose it is there and who authorized it.

Mr. Speaker: I would be pleased to do so. The cameras are authorized to be up there. One belongs to CTV national news and the other to the CBC French national news. Both are there on a temporary basis. There is not enough room in the regular part of the galleries.

INDIAN BAND AGREEMENT

Mr. T. P. Reid: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I rise to correct the record at the request of the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association. As you will recall, I put a question to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope), I believe on December 20, in regard to the draft agreement that had been signed with the native people regarding certain fishing matters.

I suppose the Minister of Natural Resources did not do it on purpose, but at that time he certainly gave the impression that NOTOA and other people were in favour of the agreement. I have a letter here, sir, and I would like to read two brief paragraphs into the record to correct the record on behalf of the association.

"The statement that our 'help was solicited with respect to the possible zoning problems' is misleading. Our executive was simply asked to inventory on a map the location of all tourist operations in the West Patricia land use area.

"At no time did NOTOA indicate to Minister Pope its support for the agreement. On the contrary, and only after being formally made aware of the contents of the agreement just three days prior to its signing, our association conveyed to the minister our opinion that the agreement was unacceptable and should be set aside. We further informed the minister that any new negotiations should include the tourism industry, other fishery user groups, Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, Ministry of Northern Affairs and other relevant government agencies from the outset.

"Yours sincerely,

"Roger G. Liddle, Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association."

Mr. Speaker: That is hardly a point of order, but it is a point of interest.

USE OF FRANKING PRIVILEGES

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, it was drawn to my attention that the member for Middlesex, the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Eaton), sent invitations around to various parts of Ontario, certainly to my riding, inviting people to attend the Progressive Conservative Middlesex Riding Association meeting at which the Minister of Education and Colleges and Universities (Miss Stephenson) was speaking.

In checking, I found that the envelope was franked down at the post office and was sent out at taxpayers' expense. At that time, it had not been metered and there had been no cost assessed to the member, and neither had the member paid for that. I think it is an abuse of our privileges and the taxpayer's privileges to have that type of thing sent around at the taxpayers' expense. Surely if the minister is going to invite people to his meeting he should be putting his own stamps on the envelopes.

Mr. Speaker: That is very interesting. This is a matter that is going to be discussed at the Board of internal Economy meeting this afternoon. I would like to make all members aware that there seems to be a lack of understanding. Certainly it would seem to be a misuse of some of the privileges we all enjoy.

Hon. Mr. Eaton: Mr. Speaker, that was an invitation sent out by myself to school board members, teachers and principals in my riding to meet the minister. It was sent at the expense of my riding association.

Mr. Riddell: Tell that to the post office.

Hon. Mr. Eaton: It was done through the post office.

Mr. Riddell: I checked with the post office.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Riddell: The post office said he did not pay for it. We will go down to the post office together.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Read Hansard.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If you want to carry on a private conversation, please do it outside the House.

CORRECTION OF NEWSPAPER REPORT

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege and to correct the record. Press reports on Saturday said that the Honourable Mark MacGuigan, Minister of Justice, and I were brothers. I wish to point out that I am very proud to call him my political cousin. He does the same for me.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Kissing cousins.

Mr. McGuigan: Political cousins, not kissing cousins. We could very well be cousins, because our families came from the same corner of Ireland. His family came to Prince Edward Island and mine to Scotland and then to Ontario, so we could very well be cousins.

Mr. Speaker: Has this anything to do with the point of privilege?

REGULATION OF TRUST COMPANIES

Mr. Peterson: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: On Friday last I asked the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) whether any notices had been filed by directors pursuant to section 193 of the Loan and Trust Corporations Act with regard to the Cadillac Fairview transaction. The minister indicated that a notice had been received from Mr. John Clement. The minister went on to say, and I quote, "To my knowledge I have received no further such indications from any directors."

On the basis of documents released by the minister, we find that two such notices were filed. The other, from Mr. Robert Stikeman, was filed on the same day as Mr. Clement's. I would appreciate it if the minister would correct the record in this regard and, further, if he would assure us that no further directors' notices have been withheld from public knowledge.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of privilege. The question should be put to the minister at the appropriate time.

2:10 p.m.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: I would ask all members of the Legislative Assembly to join with me in recognizing and welcoming in the Speaker's gallery the Honourable Haig Young, Minister of Public Works and Services for Newfoundland.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

TRANSFER OF CROWN TRUST ASSETS

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to report to the House on further developments in respect of Crown Trust Co.

From the outset, our efforts have been aimed not only at protecting the depositors to the maximum extent possible, but also at maintaining the value of Crown Trust assets in the interest of protecting other clients, creditors and shareholders of the company.

We have been working closely throughout with Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. We and they believe that decisive actions must be taken urgently if the position of the uninsured public depositors and the viability of the business of Crown Trust is to be preserved. During the past several days, we have worked very closely with CDIC to arrive at a basis upon which CDIC, in co-operation with Régie de l'assurance-dépdu Québec as to deposits in Quebec, could provide the backup funds that are essential if this is to be done on an orderly basis.

One of my early concerns with the steps we had to take in protecting the depositors of Crown Trust was the problem being created by the limitation of withdrawals to $20,000. As members know, the Honourable Paul Cosgrove, Minister of State for Finance, has announced the intention of the federal government to increase the deposit insurance to $60,000. However, it is not clear how soon this will be accomplished in Ottawa. Further, although this change in deposit insurance will improve the situation of many depositors, it by no means ensures that the business of Crown Trust can, without other steps, be returned to normal operations, or that all deposits will be paid in full.

In our discussions with Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. aimed at allowing the deposits in Crown Trust to be dealt with in the normal course of business, it has been agreed that there are terms upon which CDIC may properly ensure that the public deposits in Crown Trust will be paid in full as they mature and at the same time allow the operations of the business to be conducted in a normal fashion. These terms require the registrar to make arrangements acceptable to CDIC that will result in the business of Crown Trust being operated by new owners.

I would point out that in our review of offers to date, none of them contemplates the takeover of Crown Trust in its present financial state. All require the provision of massive amounts of funds by CDIC which would not be available from any other sources.

We believe that unless we make arrangements as discussed with CDIC, our only alternative is to apply to have the company wound up. In fact, at the special hearing before the Chief Justice that occurred on Sunday last, counsel representing the majority owners of Crown Trust advised the Chief Justice that he intended to proceed with an application under the federal Winding-up Act to have Crown Trust wound up.

If we are forced, because of delay or any other factors, to have recourse to winding-up procedures, there will be substantial losses to depositors and long delays in recoveries. We believe the proposed arrangements provide the only effective procedure to deal with the assets of Crown Trust in a way that will protect the public depositors and maximize the chances of recovery for other clients, creditors and shareholders of the company.

If these arrangements are to be effective, it is essential that the registrar be empowered by new legislation to enter into these arrangements. It is also essential that we know there is an acceptable company ready, willing and able to take over the assets of Crown Trust and to manage its business as soon as those arrangements are in place. Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. and Régie de l'assurance-dépdu Québec are prepared to co-operate with us in allowing the business of Crown Trust to return to normal operations.

I will be introducing a bill later this afternoon to confer on the registrar the necessary powers to effect the arrangements. As soon as the bill becomes law, we, CDIC and Régie de l'assurance-dépdu Québec will be in a position to comply with the terms of the proposed arrangements that will result in the lifting of the restrictions on the payment of deposits. I would therefore urge upon all members of the House its speedy passage.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TRANSFER OF CROWN TRUST ASSETS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious the minister is in a real pickle. On the one hand, he is asking for special legislation to sell or transfer these assets to another owner or manager. On the other hand, we do not know to whom, we do not know for how much and, more important, we still do not know why.

When the minister brought in his statement on January 17 he suggested $130 million was in jeopardy because of the quality of the security. Subsequent to that, there have been press reports of a missing $125 million. What are the facts upon which the minister wants us to make a judgement to deal with this in a speedy way?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, to remind members of the House, I indicated last week that as a result of a departure from the company's traditional lending patterns there was a serious deficiency now apparent in the security underlying approximately $130 million of its investments.

That remains the case, and I have indicated to this House that in view of that serious problem, we, as responsible legislators, having the option of endeavouring to save the business of Crown Trust, should do so for the benefit of the depositors and the public in general.

As to whom it will be sold, it will come as no surprise to the member that there are several people who are interested in acquiring the assets of Crown Trust. The member will also know that on Friday a representative of the government wrote to all interested parties asking them to confirm their interest and to indicate the principles of any arrangement they might contemplate. That was done, the information was received and further requests by the government and by Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. for verification of other issues and matters related to the information provided are under way today. Following that, a review of a prospective purchaser will be considered.

Mr. Peterson: The minister is asking us to take what he says on faith, and those of us watching him have no faith in him at all at this point.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Speak for yourself.

Mr. Peterson: That is absolutely the case.

How much cash will have to be injected into this company and whose cash will that be? Will the taxpayers of Ontario be guaranteeing any missing deposits or any lack of security in the assets?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Let me say it again, quite frankly and honestly and without any partisanship. I am asking this House quite seriously to look at the predicament and to accept the fact that unless we take steps such as this, recommended by CDIC and this government, we are seriously jeopardizing the rights of depositors in this province. Surely a common interest we all share is an interest in doing what we can in situations where we have the opportunity to do it to protect depositors. I think the public expects us to behave in a responsible way about these things.

As to how much cash and whose cash, I think my statement made it very clear that substantial -- indeed the word used is "massive" -- amounts of dollars will be provided by CDIC for any shortfalls that exist. This government will be putting up no money.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, we do not know what information the minister has made available to the cabinet or what information he has made available to the caucus. We do know what he has told this House and we do know what information we have.

Surely the minister would agree that we, particularly on this side of the House, are entitled to see the reports of Touche Ross and Woods Gordon in full with respect to what has happened at Crown Trust. We are entitled to know precisely what conditions CDIC has attached to its involvement in this transaction.

Finally, we and other people are entitled to know exactly what Mr. Rosenberg has done wrong. Does the minister not think we are entitled to have that information before we proceed with this kind of peremptory action?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, without accusing anyone of anything, I clearly outlined in my statement a week ago and in subsequent remarks, the reasons that prompted government action, namely, the erosion, possibly even the total erosion, of the borrowing bases of those three companies. I indicated in my statement last week that an interim report confirmed that. Further verbal information provided to me along the way confirms that.

If I have further information that I can give in a more final form as we debate the bill, I will certainly give it. I am giving the information that I can. I am confirming for members that the corporation will otherwise look to liquidation.

I am advising them that the counsel for the present majority shareholder of Crown Trust indicated yesterday before the chief justice that he would be applying for a voluntary winding-up order under the federal Winding-up Act and he already has an application before the Divisional Court with respect to the appointment of a receiver under the Loan and Trust Corporations Act for a crown corporation.

There is much evidence around for those who wish to see it to confirm that the option this government is presenting to this House is the only option, and I say that quite sincerely.

Mr. Peterson: The minister has come to us today because of the sloppy drafting the last time around and not thinking out this entire problem. That is why he is here. He has completely refused to answer any questions since his statement last week.

How can the minister come into this House and ask us to protect only the depositors or creditors of Crown Trust and not ask us to protect the depositors or creditors of Greymac or Seaway Trust? How can he draw that distinction?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I did read some reference in the newspapers to that kind of irresponsible statement with respect to draftsmanship, but let me put it quite frankly: The option of including and giving the registrar the right to sell the assets of corporations was thought of, talked about and debated. This government decided it was a very heavy responsibility to give the government and that it had given itself very heavy responsibilities in the legislation that was before the House on December 21.

If at any time we were going to face the responsibility of selling the assets of any of these corporations, we should face it before this House on an individual basis, say why we were doing it and that it had to be done, rather than cover it in some piece of legislation where it could apply to many situations.

Today we are proposing a special piece of legislation relating to a particular company, and that is the way we feel it should be in the future if situations like this arise.

As to whether or not any similar proposal would be possible for Greymac or Seaway, frankly the information on those two companies is still not complete. If there is some option for them, it will be dealt with, but let us understand the mandate of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corp.

Its primary mandate, as I told members in my original statement, has traditionally been to pay depositors up to the limit of the insurance in the event that a company fails. It is an unusual posture for it to be in, in trying to save a company like this. I do not say that critically, because relationships in the past have not contemplated that sort of option.

Clearly, the reason they are involved in this and the reason they are prepared to put up that kind of money is because it will reduce their losses. It is not because the governments are willing to save one company over another, but rather because it is now certain that, for this company, their losses can be reduced and public depositors can be protected if we pass this legislation.

Mr. Peterson: I guess what he is saying is it was too heavy a week ago, but it is not too heavy a responsibility today.

MORTGAGE PRACTICES

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the minister relating to the notices filed under section 193 of the Loan and Trust Corporations Act. I would like to read portions of these notices.

With regard to Mr. Clement's statement, dated January 18, it states in part, "On January 11, 1983, the undersigned filed a written protest with the above company" -- being Greymac Trust -- "against some $20 million in mortgage loans purportedly made by it covering certain former Cadillac Fairview buildings not brought to my attention until January 10, 1983."

Similarly, Mr. Stikeman's notice, also dated January 18, reads in part, "Please be advised that on January 11, 1982" -- which I gather means 1983 -- "I protested in writing to the above company, Greymac Trust, about an alleged loan of $20 million by that company in the Cadillac Fairview/Kilderkin transaction as reported in the Globe and Mail the previous day."

These transactions took place on November 5 and November 8. Indeed, the minister reported them in his statement of November 10 last. Could the minister indicate whether these notices have been determined to fall within the time constraints as set out in section 193 of the Loan and Trust Corporations Act?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, if I may just comment, the member has criticized me earlier for withholding information. I did not withhold any information. I said any notifications I was aware of I would report, and I did report. It was later that day or the next day, I cannot recall which, when the second notification was brought to my attention. I have no reason not to report them. They are public documents. Why would anybody be silly enough to try to hide reporting of these things when they are available to the public and the member has them?

As to whether or not these notices satisfy the obligations placed upon directors under the Loan and Trust Corporations Act, I can only say those are matters that will await legal determination by any parties that have an interest in that aspect of it.

Mr. Peterson: The events surrounding the events that forced these gentlemen to file their notices were public knowledge in November. I ask the minister again, does he have any indication why they were filed two months after the fact? Has his ministry, the registrar, his regulators, investigators or anyone else determined why everyone else knew about these things, yet the directors of that company did not know?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I do not propose to get into a discussion as to whether or not the notices filed were appropriate or legal. What I am saying to the member is there are mechanisms for those who wish to review the adequacy of this and whether it meets the responsibilities imposed upon directors. I do not propose that this is the place where that should be debated, a place where, as the member knows, the parties do not have an opportunity to present their views.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us whether the government is planning to take any action against any of the directors of Crown, Greymac or Seaway? If he is not in a position to tell us that today, can he please tell us when he will be in a position to tell us what kinds of actions the government plans to take against any of the directors?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I really do not mean to say this in any facetious way but, quite seriously, when the government makes a determination about the actions it believes are necessary as a result of the events we are now involved in, I will report that to the House. Then the member will have the opportunity of evaluating the appropriateness of it.

Mr. Peterson: To repeat, the minister is aware that under the legislation one has to report within 24 hours after becoming aware of the transaction and notify the registrar within eight days of making such protest. Is it the minister's view that Mr. Clement and Mr. Stikeman learned of the $20-million mortgage by Greymac for the Cadillac Fairview deal only on January 10? Does he accept that at face value?

If he does not, is Mr. Morrison or anyone else talking to these gentlemen under oath to try to determine what their legal responsibility was and whether they fulfilled their legal obligations under section 193 of the Loan and Trust Corporations Act?

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I have not directed nor do I intend to direct Mr. Morrison as to whom he should inquire into, question or examine. That would be a matter for him to decide on the basis of the information available to him.

As to what the government's view is with respect to the resignation or the notifications under section 193 of the Loan and Trust Corporations Act, I have already indicated that very clearly.

CONCENTRATION IN TRUST INDUSTRY

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us whether he has concern about, and whether the cabinet has given any consideration to, the impact of a forced sale of Crown Trust on the increased concentration in the trust industry?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say that cabinet is of the view that the issue of concentration and ownership in the trust industry is an issue that should be thoroughly and completely addressed in the white paper. I think the leader of the third party agrees with that.

I hope he also agrees that in the interests of protecting the depositors, surely it is not an issue to be resolved today. It is an issue that requires a lot of public input and a lot of discussion and decisions by this Legislature. The issue now is a really serious one that needs urgent attention. I presume we all have the same goal in mind.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, without wanting to comment on that I think the minister has to appreciate that he is really asking a great deal from members of this Legislature and, particularly, members of the opposition. We do not have tabled before us the reports from the companies that have been involved in Crown Trust. We do not have tabled before us any of the reports from the Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. We do not know what arrangements are being proposed. We do not know how much money is involved. We do not know what the minister means when he says it is the only alternative. We do not know what infusion of money is anticipated or expected from the Canada Deposit Insurance Corp.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: What does the minister mean exactly when he says what the government is proposing is the only alternative? Does he seriously expect parties in the opposition to agree with him when we do not know any of the facts upon which he is basing his decision?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: What I am saying very clearly is that the government has put itself on the line with respect to the issues at hand. The leader of the third party as a graduate lawyer understands the options that are open to those who feel the government has not acted properly.

He also knows there are only certain options when one is faced with a company whose borrowing base and, therefore, viability, have been seriously eroded. That is a winding up, either voluntarily or compulsorily, or some mechanism by which there is an infusion of capital to make it possible to keep a company viable and to protect its public depositors.

Those are the only options I know of. If the member has any other in mind -- perhaps if he can take up a collection he may want to put in an offer. Quite seriously, I do not know of any other options, but I do know there is one application at present pending for voluntary winding-up by the majority owner of the shares. There was an indication yesterday from his counsel that he intends to make an application for a winding-up order under the federal Winding-up Act. So I think we have pretty good indications here of what the options are.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the minister has come to us today trying to impart a great sense of urgency. When one distils it all down, he has asked us to act on faith in himself, his government, the registrar and a variety of other people he has. Very frankly, it is difficult for us to have any faith in the minister and/or his investigators or regulators, or the registrar who has been asleep at the switch for two years.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: Is the minister prepared to come to our caucus today or anytime in the next day or two to tell us why he needs this legislation now?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that is one of the nicest invitations I have ever received but I am not sure it is. After all that criticism, does the Leader of the Opposition want me to bask in the glory of being in his caucus? Is that why he wants me there? Or does he hope I will improve the calibre? No, I would not improve the calibre.

Mr. Kerrio: The Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch) came; he was not shy.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Any options that enable me to provide the opposition party with the kind of information that is available to me and which can be released and does not compromise other situations, I will look at very seriously today.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, if the minister can come before the House requesting a forced sale, would he not agree he can also come before this House asking for legislation that would allow the government to administer the affairs of Crown Trust for a transitional period until all the facts are known?

Would he not agree the only limitations on the government's alternatives are this government's imagination and its commitment to seeing that a forced sale is not carried through precipitously?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Again, I think the member has in his caucus a capacity for wise advice on these issues. I mean that quite sincerely. He and I know that as each day goes by the business of Crown Trust erodes and the potential for erosion escalates. I do not say that to frighten anybody. The government has a proposal here through which we believe this crisis can be avoided.

As that situation erodes, problems develop in terms of its acceptability to purchasers. Above all, one has to understand the role of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. in this. I mean this very sincerely. Their role is primarily to reduce their losses, but because their losses would be less by preserving Crown Trust as a business, they are prepared to put up massive numbers of dollars on the understanding there will be a relatively quick sale. They know that to preserve the business of Crown Trust that has to happen, as we know that has to happen. This cannot be left hanging in the balance any longer. I say that in all sincerity.

JOB CREATION

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Premier. It concerns jobs and joblessness and homelessness in this province. There was a statement made in December by his deputy sitting next to him that job creation is the number one priority of his government. I wonder if the Premier can explain why there has not been a single announcement of any new initiative with respect to job creation in housing, public transportation or in municipal public works from the government since the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) met with his colleagues in finance from the other provinces and with Mr. Lalonde. He described it as his most successful meeting with them.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am going a little by memory, but I do not think that is factually correct. There have been two or three announcements made. We are still waiting --

Mr. T. P. Reid: There have been 157 jobs.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, I can only refer to my own municipality where I read something in the paper about funding being provided. It is true here in Metro as well. There have been a number of municipalities that have been assured funding for certain job creation programs.

Mr. Rae: I hope the Premier will appreciate the fact that we not only have a joblessness crisis in this province -- where 209,000 jobs have been lost since the budget of May -- but according to all reports, in Metro there is a major homelessness crisis as well. It affects thousands of people, young and old. In that regard, can the Premier tell us why this government has not provided any funding for the two major housing initiatives announced by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett), InnoRent and Renthab?

Why has the government singularly failed, by any criterion, to address the problem of low-income housing, not only in Toronto but across this province? Why has it failed to do so when we have a joblessness crisis with tens of thousands of people unemployed in the construction industry, and a homelessness crisis affecting young and old alike?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I was listening to two or three conversations the other day when I heard the minister announce the effectiveness of the housing program that was introduced in the Treasurer's budget. If memory serves me correctly there were in excess of some 16,000 applications. We were contemplating some 15,000. Those homes are still under construction. It has been a real impetus to the housing construction industry. It is still going on. The member takes the position that nothing has happened; it has happened and is continuing to happen.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The Premier is aware that the Treasurer's estimate of the number employed is 334,000 out. The Premier may be aware that his friend, Mr. Godfrey, in today's Star, said he is disappointed in the two senior levels of government and their response to the unemployment situation.

Can the Premier assure us there will be some announcements within the next two weeks that we will see something concrete that people will be put back to work? Will he also assure us the money is going to be allocated to those areas where there is high unemployment rather than to some of the areas where the unemployment situation is not so severe?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, as I recall the arrangement, the formula really operates to a very great extent on the basis of numbers unemployed within a certain community.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, we are all experiencing tremendous difficulty -- and I am sure the Premier is aware of this -- in getting anybody into Ontario Housing because the units just are not there.

There have been two reports issued this month -- People Without Homes: A Permanent Emergency, issued by the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto; and No Place To Go, A Study of Homelessness in Metropolitan Toronto, which was put out by the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. Both indicate there are families who cannot find affordable homes. There are young people who cannot find affordable homes. There are single, employable men who cannot find work and who cannot find a place to live. The hostels are stretched to the very limit and this affordability crisis is there; it is very real and is not being addressed by any of the programs that have been announced or not announced by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

How can the Premier justify the inaction in this area of low income housing when we know it is creating a social crisis and that there is a crisis of joblessness out there? How can he justify that kind of lethargy which has become the hallmark of his government when it comes to social housing in this province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would only ask the honourable member to go back in history a little and assess very objectively and very carefully the record of this government in socially assisted housing. I think it is fair to state that if he compares this with any comparable jurisdiction in Canada or in the United States --

Mr. Rae: That is not true.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is true. Let the member show me one province of a like nature that has done and is doing more in this sense than the government of Ontario. Also there is not a state of the union that has done nearly as much. I get a little weary of members of the New Democratic Party suggesting they are the only ones interested in human issues. This government not only is interested, it has performed. That is one reason we are still here and they are there; and we are going to stay here.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: How many have you built since 1975?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

FACILITIES FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY HANDICAPPED

Mr. Riddell: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. A report by Walter Williston on the care and supervision of mentally retarded persons in Ontario calls for the phasing down of the larger institutions for the developmentally handicapped. In his report he described the large institutions as dull, monotonous, impersonal, overcrowded, with the emphasis being on custody and not training.

He further stated that these institutions were isolated from the rest of the community, and they had insufficient number of physicians, psychiatrists and other skilled professionals. He said buildings were too large, overcrowded and antiquated, and constituted a serious fire hazard. He said they were not economical and that generally such institutions forced the retarded person to function far below his developmental possibility. He said smaller institutions had several advantages: they were more humane, were a lot less expensive and the mentally retarded could be more easily integrated into the community.

My question is very simple. Why is the minister closing the smaller institutions and leaving the larger ones open?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, first, I think everybody in this House would acknowledge that at the time the Williston report was written some of those allegations were true. I defy the honourable member or anybody else to say conditions are even approaching that today -- even in the largest facility we have.

Second, I presume the member, without mentioning it, is talking about Huronia. Huronia at the moment has 929 residents, of which 665 are either in total medical chronic care or in such specialized units that the service could not be provided in any smaller institution. That leaves about 300. Notwithstanding the fact that Huronia is not part of our five-year plan, its second campus will be much smaller at the end of the next five years in terms of chronic medical care.

I do not think anybody would want to break up a unit that has total medical care when that medical care cannot be duplicated elsewhere. The approximately 300 mentioned before will be much reduced by the end of five years through the normal process of going out into the community to places near their homes. But that is not even included in the five-year plan. That is just normal. That institution or facility will be made smaller.

As for the other large facility, Rideau: out of the approximately 1,000 residents there 554 are in a special chronic care unit like the one I just described. The member might want to take into consideration that there is a special francophone unit there which we could not duplicate if we put those around institutions in western Ontario. If Rideau is closed the facility at Picton which now has 354 people will approximately triple its size or the facility at Brockville will be increased ninefold.

One last thing: there is another large facility -- I suppose by the member's definition two of them -- in western Ontario. Is the member suggesting I close Cedar Springs? No, he is not. Is he suggesting I close Woodstock? No, he is not. Woodstock, indeed, is being phased down.

Mr. Riddell: One recognizes the track record the minister's government has had on closing down beds before it has ensured that adequate programs and placements are available to take their place. That happened in the health care system in acute care hospital beds. It happened with psychiatric institutions which created such problems as exist in Parkdale. What is the minister going to do for those in institutions who can never go into the community or live at home? Will they be enslaved to these massive institutions for the rest of their lives?

What is the minister going to do for Mrs. Mary Lou Forsyth, a single parent with two daughters, who had to fight to have her son moved from a large institution to a smaller one where he is making good progress? At the large institution he was receiving only limited training -- one half hour gross motor program a day was the limited government requirement. After being moved to the Durham Centre for the Developmentally Handicapped he has progressed remarkably. We say that because we have visited those centres.

Mrs. Forsyth says she will not allow her son to go back to those large institutions. As a result, she will be forced to quit her job, stay at home and collect family benefits. What is the minister going to do for people like Mrs. Forsyth?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Obviously the member had the first part of his question written before I gave my first answer. I think one of the remarks he made in there --

Mr. Riddell: We don't --

Hon. Mr. Drea: I did not interrupt him. He should please keep his hands down and control himself. He is not running his usual weekend endeavour in here.

2:50 p.m.

I would also point out to the honourable member that when he was talking about any deinstitutionalization he was not talking about this ministry's track record. I would appreciate it if he would be accurate.

If the member can show me one person who was discharged or left a facility -- indeed there were 3,800 of them over the last seven years -- or one person who was put out into the community without a full support program, he should stand up and give the name. He cannot do that. If he wants to talk about other programs and other ministries then he should do it in those ministry estimates. He should not try to give the impression in here that has been in any way, shape or form the policy or the operational mandate of this ministry.

In regard to the case the member has brought forward, in five years or so when Durham is being phased out -- he gives the impression it is being done overnight but it is not -- those children of the sole-support mother he mentioned will not be moving to a larger institution. I would have thought the member would have been able to assure her of that.

Mr. Riddell: I can show the minister his performance at the Bluewater Centre in 1981 when he assured the people that centre would remain. It is on film.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, although the minister has been more calm than usual in his response -- and we welcome this new image -- he is continuing his approach of distorting the facts. Why has the minister raised the notion that the choice would be between closing down Rideau or expanding the Quinte facility up to 900 or tenfold in Brockville? Those are not the choices he would have to make and he knows he would not have to make them. It is absolutely ridiculous.

Is it not true --

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The minister should wait for me to finish. He is calm now.

Is it not true that even by his own statistics the minister has just thrown out the door several hundred people in both those large institutions that could be deinstitutionalized, and that could have been his concentration? Why did he concentrate on the small institutions that are more community-involved?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I have gone through this on several occasions with the member. It is a twofold question. One factor was logistics and accessibility, making sure when we had a surplus of beds there were not abrupt closings that would have left the parents in the lurch as to where they would have had to visit. There was also the concern over six years that those in the child care field, and those in the support field who work in our facilities, deserved every chance to be able to move with the least possible dislocation. The member knows that is why we did it.

The member is shaking his head. The problem with him shaking his head is that last week he bragged in here we would not close down Huronia in phases because we would not save any money. I have just told the member that by this spring, in the ordinary course of events, we will be deinstitutionalizing and making Huronia smaller, and it will continue to be made smaller except for the chronic care.

The member talks about closing larger institutions without dislocation and making visiting inaccessible to the parents. In eastern Ontario there are the following facilities: the facility at Picton, the facility at Smiths Falls, the Rideau Regional Centre and the facility at Brockville that is being phased down. Surely the member is not going to suggest I move people from Rideau all the way over to western Ontario --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: You are sending them to the Edgar institution in Barrie.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Drea: -- all the way down to Picton or a number of other places. If the member is going to make these ill-conceived comments, then he has to be prepared to take the repercussions when somebody points out something as simple as geography.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify the record if I might. The minister knows it is being planned to move people who are in Brockville at the moment to the Edgar institution in Barrie. If that is not dislocation I do not know what is.

I also have a new question in the same area for the Minister of Community and Social Services. In June 1981, he was at Bluewater where he gave a stirring speech, a wonderful speech, which I thought was just tremendous. Those who heard it also thought it was one of his best and most coherent efforts.

Mr. Speaker: Now for the question.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: We thought the minister was right when he said to the workers at that institution: "You are doing something that is extremely valuable and extremely vital. It might not always be applauded or patted on the back but if you were not here, and this was only grass, think of the enormous loss in human potential and human development, and indeed, a loss to the entire community. That is why we are going to be a bigger and more successful part of the community" -- meaning this institution.

If that was the case then -- that the minister was recognizing they had a good track record in deinstitutionalization themselves and 85 people had been prepared for the community in that institution -- what changed his mind so that now, all of a sudden, Bluewater is second on his hit list?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Well, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. T. P. Reid: He is calm now, not incoherent.

Hon. Mr. Drea: -- first, I do not have a hit list. Second, at the time I made those remarks there was no consideration by anybody of phasing out or doing anything other than in the normal course of events at Bluewater.

Mr. Riddell: It shows the lack of planning.

Hon. Mr. Drea: In the course of developing our plan over a number of months -- and that course began after that date; I could read off, again, the immortal remarks made on October 19 by the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) who knew -- it is great, but I will not.

Mr. Riddell: Go ahead.

Hon. Mr. Drea: We looked at it in terms of a comprehensive, province-wide plan. The most painful decision in the entire effort for me was the one to phase out Bluewater. I will take responsibility for it, but if the honourable member does not want facilities closed he should stand up and be a man and say so. Is he saying he wants them closed? Which way is it?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The minister knows which way it is. We want it done with some planning.

Hon. Mr. Drea: The Ontario Association for the Mentally Retarded this weekend made several decisions. I hope the honourable member does not blunder into their fire.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I also hope I do not blunder into their fire. There has been enough blundering into his own fire by this minister.

During that speech the minister praised a lot of things about that institution: the quality of the workers, the fact that they had done more in terms of individualized connection with people than the entire education system had done in 150 years. He knows the average age of a resident of that institution is 45. He knows their parents are old and quite worried about what is happening.

Is it not true the only thing that changed his mind as to why this institution should be closed was that the Young Offenders Act was coming up and he had to find some institutions for Correctional Services? He is trading off the quality of care for these people because he knows there is nothing available in that community in terms of group homes and no zoning for it. Is he not trading off the quality of care for these people for his lack of preparation for what is going to be foisted upon him by the federal decision involving the Young Offenders Act, and because he needs an institution for correctional care there?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, that is categorically untrue.

Mr. Laughren: Even the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Leluk) agrees.

Hon. Mr. Drea: As of this moment, and it is public knowledge, this ministry does not have responsibility for youthful offenders. The member made a wild and irresponsible -- rash is closer to home -- allegation. There was no consideration given at the time the decision was made because we did not even know if the Youthful Offenders Act was going to be passed.

But the member's party made sure it was passed and foisted the bill on the provincial governments. That was his party.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: That is the minister's problem. In October 1982, he knew damned well, when he made this announcement.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Please, if the member wants to use profanity he should go to one of his better places.

In fairness to the member for Huron-Middlesex, who asked me when he first found out, I pointed out that one of the possible potential future uses might very well be an institution for youthful offenders. That was in October 1982. I can hardly make a decision based upon a jurisdiction I have, when I do not know the jurisdiction in another area that I will have. I do not know it as of today.

Now that the honourable member knows those facts, I would ask him to withdraw that question.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked to withdraw the question. Is that an order?

Mr. Speaker: The question already has been dealt with.

3 p.m.

Mr. Hodgson: Mr. Speaker, within the riding of York North we have the same problem as the member for Huron-Middlesex and others in that we are closing down an institution.

There is a question I want to ask the minister. I am glad he has verified it, but I want it reverified. Last Wednesday night, Dr. Baker was at a meeting in Newmarket, and he said they could expect Pine Ridge in Aurora to be closed down in 1984. He had just talked about a five-year program prior to that, starting in 1983; so a lot of people were very happy that it would be 1988 before it closed down. However, he said it was going to close in 1984. Was that a mistake the director made when he said it would be closed down in 1984, or was he just filling in the time?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, when we made the initial announcement, we gave some general time frames because part of our concern was for the employees and indeed for the residents and the parents; so there were some very definite time frames.

The St. Lawrence Regional Centre in Brockville is scheduled to be phased down in the fiscal year 1983-84. The Bluewater Centre in Goderich also is scheduled to be phased down in the fiscal year 1983-84. The St. Thomas Adult Rehabilitation and Training Centre will be phased down in 1984-85. Pine Ridge in Aurora also will be phased down in 1984-85. D'Arcy Place in Cobourg will be phased down in 1985-86 and the Durham Centre in Whitby in 1986-87.

As I have pointed out on several occasions since then, those are target goals. The phasing out of any particular facility, regardless of the time frame, depends upon the complete placement of its residents. As long as there is even one resident in one of those facilities who has not yet received a placement which in the view of those concerned, including the parents, is suitable then that particular facility will continue.

I also point out that those are fiscal years. When we are talking about 1984-85, that is some time between April 1, 1984, and March 31, 1985. It is considered a five-year plan because it goes from the announcement that was made in 1982 to the end of the fiscal year in 1987.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, if the minister insists that he has been working in concert with the Ontario Association for the Mentally Retarded in the closing of these facilities, how does he explain a letter written by Mr. James Montgomerie, the president of OAMR, addressed to the corporation of the town of Goderich? I want to read just one paragraph:

"In the case of the recently announced five-year plan and the resulting closure of facilities such as the Bluewater Centre, the Ontario Association for the Mentally Retarded played no direct role. We were not part of the planning process, nor were we informed of these plans until after they had been established and made public through a document leaked to the press."

How can the minister keep hanging his hat on the Ontario Association for the Mentally Retarded when they had nothing to do with his five-year plan to close these centres?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member has not even given me the courtesy of a date, but I do not really need that. There is no question, and we never have said, that the OAMR was consulted before the leak in the press. But I suggest --

Mr. Riddell: December 13.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Not this minister so don't somebody say yes.

Mr. Boudria: Oh, Margaret did.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes, and that comes from the member who told me the other night that if I could show him we were more than meeting the community list he would accept our credibility and go along.

Mr. Boudria: I never said that.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes, you did.

They were obviously not consulted beforehand. We were in the process of going to consult them at the time the leak occurred. Since that time there have been a great many consultations leading up to this weekend's results. This weekend at their full board meeting -- without the government -- where they analysed it backwards and forwards on everything they knew, had read about or had even heard from the member, they endorsed the program. The same thing is true of the Metropolitan Toronto Association for the Mentally Retarded.

Mr. Boudria: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The minister should be corrected. The Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) stated on November 8 --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of privilege or a point of order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I specifically replied, "Not this minister."

Mr. Speaker: Order. That was made quite clear.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question on the same topic, the closing of the institutions for the mentally retarded.

A few minutes ago the minister stated in reply to the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) that the closing of the Bluewater Centre was not planned years ahead, that when he made his speech it was to stay open. Yet the minister in this House, and Garry Baker his top administrator, both said the closing of these centres had been preceded by years of planning and discussion. I would like the minister to clarify which it is.

If the latter is the case, why are parents shocked and angry and why do local associations still not know their role in all of this? Again, if he has had years of planning -- and maybe he did not -- maybe he could clarify that.

In particular, why has $2.1 million been spent at Pine Ridge, a facility the minister said minutes ago is going to be closed some time in 1984, on renovations specifically to adapt the building for the care of the mentally retarded? Those renovations include the construction of special cottages as a form of deinstitutionalization right on the premises and the construction of elevators. As a matter of fact, can the minister tell us whether the renovations, which are still going on, will be completed in time for him to close the building?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the last part of the question, the honourable member obviously wants a repetition of some of the things that were contained in the Williston report, which his colleague read a little earlier and which was from an earlier day.

First of all, with respect to consulting with local associations and the OAMR on the general principles of deinstitutionalization -- because the member talked about centres; not one, but "centres," just so he does not bleat in a minute that he has been misunderstood -- this ministry has been consulting with local associations and the OAMR for several years concerning the phasing out of facilities. That is a well-known fact, and indeed it was pointed out on Saturday. Did they not have the member there as one of the experts to advise them?

3:10 p.m.

When looking at the phasing down of facilities, all 17 were under review. I draw to the member's attention questions asked of me in the House last year by the member for Northumberland (Mr. Sheppard); certainly D'Arcy Place was under review at that time, more than a year ago. All the facilities -- and this was pointed out -- were under review. However, it was a personal goal of mine, because of the particular affection I had for Bluewater, that Bluewater should not be included. When it became necessary to include Bluewater, it was done. To accuse us of going into this haphazardly is to suggest that the OAMR and other associations that support us do not know what they are doing either.

Mr. Boudria: Oh no, we did not say that.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Oh yes, he did.

Mr. Boudria: He knows we did not.

Hon. Mr. Drea: When they start asking him, my friend had better be in full retreat.

Mr. Boudria: How is the minister able to plan with confidence the mobilization of the 1,000 mentally retarded he is going to be moving? According to the man in charge, the minister has no estimate of people on waiting lists in the community. This is according to his own official. He does not know how many are on waiting lists now; if he can, I would like him to give us the exact number on waiting lists already.

There are no definite figures of how many beds will be created and, if there are, he has not stated them in this House. With no quantification of demand or definite figures on supply, his ministry is planning the future of more than 1,000 people. How is he doing it? Is it just cost that is the motivation behind all this, or is there actually a plan with some kind of rationalization?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Obviously on either Monday night or Tuesday night -- I believe it was Tuesday, although it could have been Monday -- the member was not here when I answered in some detail about the waiting list.

I ask him not to point his finger at me. He was not here. He departed for some place in between and then came back looking around at a later hour.

I will read it again. This will take care of the waiting list and a number of other things. The member for Scarborough West heard it. He is going to hear it again. Obviously something occurred to the member for Prescott-Russell.

"In the accelerated community living programs for the developmentally handicapped, my staff examined all factors which influence the availability of services.

"One major factor was turnover. At the present we have 3,600 community residential beds. Each year, many residents of these places are able to move on to a more independent setting. For example, some people are able to move out into their own apartments with the support of adult protective service workers.

"As a result of this flow-through, residential opportunities for our clients do not depend fully on new beds. In fact, while we plan to add 244 more new group home beds over the next five years, we expect the normal turnover will make an additional 420 group home beds available providing a total of 664 places in group homes over the next five years.

"In addition to the standard group homes, the ministry has committed in the five-year plan to developing 200 new places for hard-to-serve children and 150 places for hard-to-serve adults. We are also making funds available for the conversion of 100 group home beds to more intensive settings.

"The minimum projected number of residential places available over the next five years will be 1,014. It is my ministry's expectation that 300 to 400 of these beds will be taken by discharged institutional residents, leaving 600 to 700 for community residents who are on waiting lists of community agencies."

Even the waiting list, the member said the other night, was far from complete; he conceded he had to get it. Obviously that number will just about meet what he found out was there.

I also want to point out two other little relevant factors. We will also provide another 750 community living opportunities which will be available. It is important to note that the five-year plan is as of April 1, 1983. To strengthen the base of the plan, my ministry has been working in this fiscal year -- that is today -- to bring on new residences, work places and community support.

We expect to provide community living spaces for 400 people before the five-year plan even begins in April. That brings us up to 1,514. I think that more than answers the question and the concerns of the member.

INDIAN BAND AGREEMENT

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources concerning the native fishing agreement. In view of the fact that there has been a great deal of heat generated out there in Ontario about the agreement, and in particular about the zones and which lakes will be zoned in which way, can the minister tell us a couple of things?

First, when the agreement was signed, did the minister know which lakes were going to be zoned in which way? If he did not know, does he not realize this is what is contributing to a lot of the problems out there across Ontario? One of the reasons we are not having an informed debate and criticism of the agreement out there is that people do not understand which lakes are being zoned in which way.

Can the minister tell us when we will all know which lakes specifically are going to be zoned in the way that is outlined in the agreement so that we can get on with an informed debate across this province on the agreement?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, it is true that at the time the agreement was signed a zoning decision had not been made on any lakes. There had been some discussion and a proposition advanced by four band councils with respect to only a part of the West Patricia area in terms of zones. A proposed response was submitted back to them by the Minister of Natural Resources, incorporating the concerns of the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association. I say that to my friend the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid). It was always known that map was being prepared for the purpose of that response.

I had requested in May 1982 that the Indian negotiators go back to the bands and submit a detailed list of every single lake and every single zoning request that they wanted to make to the tripartite council so that could be resolved before the agreement was signed. That was my position, and I knew of the problems if that did not happen.

After three months the Indian negotiators came to me and said that it was absolutely impossible; that they had not been able to prepare any maps, although they had had a couple of meetings with staff in various locations. Therefore, they would have to agree to a general system which only would be able to be implemented by specific regulation after the agreement was signed. I knew that was not the preferred course, but it was the only option I had available to me to get an agreement. I think that is important. It is contributing to some of the misunderstanding and apprehension out there.

Mr. Speaker, on two occasions the member for Rainy River has risen and indicated that, directly or by inference, I had misled this House with respect to statements that were made on December 20 and reported in Hansard. The first time the member rose there was some validity to the point he was making, because when he talked about the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, on the afternoon of December 16 they sent me a telex urging me not to sign. That arrived in my office on December 17, after I had already signed.

They sent a letter dated December 8, detailing every single principle of the agreement. The reason I did not stand in my place before is that it is true that in their detailed, clause-by-clause analysis of that agreement they indicated that sports fishing should have priority over Indian fishing for food. They also indicated that they did not like the wording of the zone 1 designation and that it should be only for lakes completely surrounded by reserve land. They did not agree --

Mr. T. P. Reid: Is this a point of order?

Hon. Mr. Pope: I was going to stand on a point of privilege anyway. They did not agree that this agreement should not be part of the constitutional and aboriginal negotiations that were going on in the constitutional forum. Those were the three objections. If the member reads the letter from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters --

Mr. T. P. Reid: That pretty well covers it, don't you think?

Hon. Mr. Pope: It does not cover it. If he would read the agreement and read their letter, he would see that they agreed with every other principle in the agreement. In fairness, he should ask them to produce the letter.

Now let us talk about the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association. The member has indicated that by inference I said NOTOA approved of this agreement. I am going to read from Hansard of December 20. I think he should have read from it too when he stood in his place in the House today. He should have read it before he made the allegations that he did. Here is a quote from Hansard:

"The Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association was advised in August" -- I said that in the House on Thursday and, in fact, it was August 14 -- "as was the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, that it was taking place. It was the subject matter of negotiations at the NOTOA annual convention in Thunder Bay. Four to five weeks ago, they were briefed for half an hour by myself as to the principles involved. Their help was solicited with respect to the possible zoning problems. They provided maps to the Ministry of Natural Resources, which have been helpful to us in terms of the West Patricia area.

"The Indian chiefs did get together and make a zoning submission on the West Patricia area, and we had a response on behalf of the government of Ontario that took into account the concerns of the northern Ontario tourist outfitters."

On the following page, there is a further statement in reply to a question from the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren). "I have already indicated to the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters and their municipal representatives, that they would all be involved in consultation before any specific zoning decisions are made and before any of the detailed implementation regulations are passed." That is from Hansard of December 20.

3:20 p.m.

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

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege in regard to what the minister has just said. I rose earlier in the day before question period and read into --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think you are more properly rising on a supplementary in reply to the statement.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, with respect, the minister is accusing me of misrepresenting and misleading --

Mr. Stokes: If it is a question of a supplementary, I think we are entitled to the first supplementary; and I have one, if you are listening to a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: The reply as I heard it was specifically to two members, the member for Rainy River and the member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. T. P. Reid: With respect, my friend asked one question.

Mr. Speaker: I am prepared to hear the member for Rainy River first.

Mr. Laughren: Is this a supplementary question that is being asked?

Mr. T. P. Reid: It is a point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: It is not a supplementary question. It is supplementary in reply to the minister's statement. The time for oral questions had expired. I am prepared to listen to one supplementary from each of the members mentioned.

Mr. Stokes: When did you ever have a supplementary in reply to a minister's statement?

Mr. Speaker: We always do, with all respect. I will listen to whoever wants to stand first on a point of privilege.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, that is what I stood on. I will be very brief. I will table with the Clerk a copy of the letter received from NOTOA, as well as a letter from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. I should think anybody reading this information obviously would be of the opinion that neither of these organizations was in agreement in principle with the document the minister signed.

It is the secretiveness, and the way he told them that this was all in confidence and that they could not tell their members, that are causing the problems. If he had given us some indication of what was in this agreement and what was being contemplated in the list of the lakes involved, we would not have had this confrontation in northern Ontario. It is the very secretiveness of the government that has caused this problem.

Hon. Mr. Pope: The member just made two statements in reference to those letters and the discussions that were not true.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Read the letters.

Mr. Speaker: I have no way of knowing one way or the other.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, the minister is obviously accusing me at the very least of telling an untruth, and I think he should withdraw that.

Hon. Mr. Pope: No, Mr. Speaker, I specifically did not say that. I said two of the statements made by the member were not true. I am not saying he is deliberately misleading the House. I am saying that two of the statements he just made were not true.

Mr. Speaker: I am not sure really what the difference is. If they are not true --

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, can I call the minister a prevaricator rather than a liar?

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I did not think so.

Mr. Speaker: For the information of the minister, as I heard it the honourable member was reading and repeating a statement from a letter --

Hon. Mr. Pope: Is that what the member is saying?

Mr. T. P. Reid: I am not saying it; their own letters say it. The minister can read their letters the same as everybody else.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I have a supplementary to the minister's statement.

I wonder whether it would help things, from the point of view of the member for Rainy River, NOTOA, the chambers of commerce, the hunters and anglers, and perhaps even the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier), if the Minister of Natural Resources could tell us when we can expect the specific designation of zones for those lakes he keeps talking about. That is what is causing all the problems.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, I indicated last Thursday -- and I think all honourable members of the House, including the member for Rainy River, received a copy of the statement -- that we will be making no zoning decisions until we have had consultations with the other user groups. The bands will have to make submissions to us with respect to their zoning requests before we can react to them.

Mr. Martel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Might I ask if you would have the clerks arrange the proper wording for this new rule 107, which now has been introduced into the Legislature, so I will understand just what has gone on for the last five or six minutes and so I might be able to use it at a later date, because I am simply confused as to what in God's name is going on.

Mr. Speaker: I will be happy to remember this when somebody rises to reply to a ministerial statement or to ask a question in the future. Quite obviously the question period had expired. The minister indicated that by saying, "I was going to rise on a point of privilege and make a statement anyway." He made a statement. We always allow supplementaries to a ministerial statement.

Mr. Stokes: If he gets up on a point of privilege or a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is exactly what he did, if the honourable member had been listening.

Mr. Stokes: That is not what you just said.

Mr. Speaker: It is not what I said; it is what the minister said.

Mr. Martel: That is why I wanted an interpretation.

Mr. Speaker: Now you have an interpretation.

MOTION

WITHDRAWAL OF BILL 139

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the order for second reading of Bill 139, An Act to revise the Mechanics' Lien Act, be discharged and that the bill be withdrawn.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I should indicate that it is the intention of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), under Introduction of Bills, to move a new bill that will incorporate some 70 amendments to Bill 139 so that when the House considers the bill tomorrow we will have the up-to-date, complete bill and it will not be necessary to make major or numerous amendments.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the motion by the government House leader, would it be possible to include Bill 127 in that motion?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CROWN TRUST COMPANY ACT

Hon. Mr. Elgie moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Baetz, first reading of Bill 215, An Act respecting Crown Trust Company.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. McClellan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Standing order 32(c) states, "On the introduction of a government bill a compendium of background information shall be delivered to the opposition critics."

I do not believe that a compendium of background information has been delivered to the opposition critics, and it is particularly unfortunate since this issue has preoccupied the attention of the opposition for a good period of time. It seems to me that there is an extraordinary obligation on the minister to provide a compendium of information dealing with the matters that have been raised day after day by the two opposition leaders. He has no choice.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The compendium that is available will be forwarded shortly. I regret that there has been some delay in providing it.

3:30 p.m.

CONSTRUCTION LIEN ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Wells, first reading of Bill 216, An Act to revise the Mechanics' Lien Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I introduced Bill 139, the Construction Lien Act, for first reading on June 8 last year. At that time I pointed out that this was the first total rewriting of the legislation in over 100 years. Because millions of dollars and the futures of workers, material suppliers, contractors, subcontractors, owners and lenders are at issue in lien litigation, the ministry has endeavoured to make the legislation as clear as possible.

On June 8, I said: "In reviewing suggestions for amendments to this bill, the ministry is eager to make technical revisions to improve the operation of the bill when enacted."

Construction lien conferences are being held by private groups and the Canadian Bar Association has had conferences across the province attended by over 1,000 lawyers. Those conducting the conferences and those attending them have pointed out where the bill can be improved technically.

Today, Bill 139 is to be replaced in order to facilitate its passage in this House. The new bill incorporates many of the suggestions for improvement that have been presented to the ministry. Of course, the process of revision of lien legislation, which involves so many areas of legal practice and which affects so many different interests connected with this vital industry, could go on indefinitely. However, there comes a time when the thinking and improving should come to an end and the legislation proceed. I believe that time has come.

On June 8, I stated that substantive changes to the bill, because they may affect the delicate compromises which have made the legislation possible, would not be made without compelling reasons for doing so.

Lenders and apartment builders in particular have attempted to convince the government, and I believe the opposition parties, that section 80 of the bill would be harmful to the construction industry. I am quite confident that the opposite is true. I believe that holdback security is vital to the construction industry and that, as contained in section 80, holdback security will be achieved with a minimum of cost.

I will be saying more about the Construction Lien Act before second reading. I wanted, however, to make it clear that the new bill does not in any way compromise the principles of Bill 139.

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

Mr. Riddell moved, seconded by Mr. Boudria, pursuant to standing order 34(a), that the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely the unfolding emotional and psychological tragedy to be wrought upon a large number of our citizens by the closing of the six institutions for the developmentally handicapped: St. Lawrence Regional Centre, Brockville, 1983-84; Bluewater Centre, Goderich, 1983-84; St. Thomas Adult Rehabilitation and Training Centre, 1984-85; Pine Ridge, Aurora, 1984-85; D'Arcy Place, Cobourg, 1985-86; and Durham Regional Centre, Whitby, 1986-87; the lack of public input into this policy; the gross underestimation of the services required in the community; the failure of the government to answer specific concerns of parents, staff members, volunteers and the municipalities affected and assure them that the proper services will be in place before an institution is closed; and, for these reasons and others, that a moratorium be placed on the minister's ill-conceived plan to close these facilities until a proper policy is adopted, one which recognizes the vital role played by the smaller facilities and community-based alternatives as opposed to large institutions, in the care for the developmentally handicapped.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to advise all honourable members that the notice of motion has been received in time. I will be pleased to listen to the members, for up to five minutes, as to why they think the ordinary business of the House should be set aside.

Mr. Riddell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If you have been following the questions which have been asked in this Legislature over the last number of weeks regarding the announcement by the minister of the five-year plan to close six centres for the developmentally handicapped and to reduce in size a seventh, you will know that those people in our society who cannot defend themselves, such as the mentally retarded, are being sacrificed at the altar of the government's restraint program.

The Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) announced a plan to phase out six residential facilities for the developmentally handicapped over the next five years, starting with the St. Lawrence Regional Centre in Brockville and the Bluewater Centre in Goderich this year. I have already mentioned the other centres in the motion which I just put.

Residents are now being moved from the St. Lawrence Regional Centre. Because we believe so little planning has gone into the deinstitutionalization of developmentally handicapped people, we feel very strongly that a moratorium must be placed on the closing of these centres until further study has been given to the whole matter of deinstitutionalization.

Neither the Minister of Community and Social Services nor the Premier (Mr. Davis) has accepted invitations to personally attend meetings held in the various municipalities to allay the concerns of not only the developmentally handicapped people but also their parents, their relatives, their friends, the staffs at these centres and the communities at large.

The minister chooses to send hit men like Dr. Garry Baker and Mr. McDonald, the deputy minister, to answer questions. I want to say that in many cases these two gentlemen have been embarrassed by the kinds of questions which have been asked by members of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, who are very concerned about the closing of these centres. Neither Dr. Garry Baker nor Mr. McDonald has been able to adequately answer some of the questions that were posed by these members of OPSEU as well as by concerned citizens and parents of the mentally retarded residents.

I would like to mention just a few of the concerns which we in the Liberal Party and which thousands of citizens across Ontario have about the five-year plan to close these residential facilities for the developmentally handicapped.

Why are the small institutions being closed, when Walter Williston, QC, said in his report to the Minister of Health, who at that time was the Honourable Bert Lawrence: "The large institutions with 200 and more residents are not the best way to provide care for mentally retarded people as they unnecessarily restrict their lifestyle"?

I ask the minister why he does not deinstitutionalize the larger institutions and make them smaller and more human? This is exactly the question that Mr. Williston posed in his report.

The other concerns are: What impact will the closings have on the small towns and municipalities? Why has the closing of institutions never been recommended in any studies until now? Where are the studies that have led to this five-year plan?

Mr. Speaker: One minute.

Mr. Riddell: Why has there been no long-range planning? Why has the ministry funded renovations at Pine Ridge to the extent of $2.1 million over the last year or two, and funded new facilities at the Goderich centre for the developmentally handicapped amounting to somewhere in the neighbourhood of $85,000 to put a new addition on the barn?

If the minister feels that deinstitutionalization has been successfully carried out for the last seven years, why is he taking such drastic action now by closing six of the smaller, more effective institutions? Why has there been no consultation with communities involved, including parents, the Ontario Association for the Mentally Retarded, local associations for the mentally retarded, staff, municipalities and communities where group homes will be established?

With the funds the minister is devoting to --

Mr. Speaker: The member's time has expired.

3:40 p.m.

Mr. Riddell: I could go on and on and speak of all the concerns that we have about the closing of these centres, concerns which the minister to this time has not addressed. We feel that we must get answers to these concerns. We feel there has to be further study before we go ahead with the closing of any of these centres.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the New Democratic Party to support this motion for an emergency debate. I do so for a number of reasons, because of what has gone on in terms of the deinstitutionalization up to this point, the planning and lack of openness in the process and also -- one has to consider this -- because it is at an emergency state. One has a right to ask that if this is something that was announced two months ago, why is this an emergency today, and I would like to speak to that if I could in this five minutes.

The process for deinstitutionalization of the mentally retarded has been under way for a long time. Reports such as the Williston report, suggesting the closing of the largest institutions, have been on the table for a long time. There has been movement within the ministry to make deinstitutionalization effective to a limited degree.

However, this decision to close these particular institutions came right out of the blue. Nobody was expecting this at all. It was not in the tradition of the decisions that had been made up to this point. In his position paper to cabinet, as he was trying to sell this thing, the minister basically said: We will push this thing through and we will consult afterwards. These are the kinds of responses that you can expect, but basically we will be able to get this thing through and there will not be much trouble."

I do not think the minister expected the kind of response that is now coming from those communities and from the workers involved. It is not just a matter of trying to save jobs. It is a matter of quality of care. Those communities are very concerned about that, and to say otherwise is to insult those communities.

This minister gave a very syrupy speech a year and a half ago about how great this one institution, Bluewater, was and the kind of quality of care that was being given, and yet he is now imposing a process on them with no openness, with no possibility of changing it, just of adapting to it, that is all, for that community.

We have real reason to be concerned about the lack of community programming and money that has been given for community programming in the last number of years by this ministry. Ironically, the underfunding that has been consistent in the last seven years, with as much as $5 million a year left unspent, is likely to end this year. It is likely to all be spent because of the pressure he is under. The $48 million he has for community accommodation is likely to be spent for the first time in any of his budgets because of the pressure he is now under.

He knows that a lot of these communities do not have the capacity to respond to the kinds of deinstitutionalization he is talking about, and that people will not be kept in their communities but will be moved again. He knows that because he is already doing that in Brockville.

Why is there an emergency? The emergency is there for two reasons. One is that there are many thousands of people residents, parents and communities who are very concerned and are emotionally upset about what is going on because of the lack of consultation, and that upset must be allayed by a major and frank discussion here in the Legislature today.

More important, and very specifically, he is in the process now of closing down an institution. Brockville may be said to be closing in 1983-84, in terms of projection, but right now he is closing that institution. Right now he is avoiding the process of openness and discussion about where we should be doing this and the public process that should be taken and he is closing Brockville. Six residents were moved last Friday, but not into the community. They were moved to Rideau, the largest institution in that area of the province and one of the largest in the province. Four more will be gone by this Friday, taken one at a time each day starting tomorrow, so that will be 10.

Where are they going? They are going to Rideau. Where are we being told the rest are going? Not to some community residence in Cornwall, but to Edgar, a facility in Barrie which is already at capacity and to which perhaps eight people can go. That community has no connection with eastern Ontario at all.

This is the lack of planning that is going on. There is going to be major disruption right now in Brockville. It is time for a moratorium. It is time to stop. It is time to have a legislative committee look at this in public and hold hearings in the various communities.

We cannot stop this. The Brockville facility will essentially be moved if we do not have a debate on it today and bring the focus on it today that is necessary so we can stop this minister from acting in a way that disregards the interests of the community and force him to act in a way that includes it in the decision making.

That is why the six mayors of these communities are upset at not having been able to see him. That is why we must have an emergency debate today. It cannot wait any longer. Ten people will be gone by this weekend from Rideau, and many other things will be taking place in Brockville that we will not be able to change if we do not have the debate today.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, while I obviously welcome any scrutiny on the phasing out of six facilities for the mentally retarded, I would point out that, contrary to the statements of the last speaker and contrary to some of the innuendoes of the speaker before that, it is not an emergency situation.

The plan has not been public for two months; it has been public for more than three months, since last October. It is winning widespread public support, particularly from those who have the most personal and intimate stake in the care of the retarded.

I would point out that the plan is far from ill conceived, as the resolution states. To vote in support of that allegation is to slap the Ontario Association for the Mentally Retarded, which now supports it. This weekend the OAMR at its full board meeting endorsed the plan and will work with us in partnership in its implementation. Do any honourable members suggest that the OAMR would support an ill-conceived plan?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: What choice do they have?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Then I presume the member says they are supporting an ill-conceived plan. If that is what he wants to say, let him stand up and say it.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I say that if they are supporting it --

Hon. Mr. Drea: He says that. Fine. Mr. Speaker, let the record show he said it.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I will say it in a full sentence if you want.

Hon. Mr. Drea: The Metropolitan Toronto Association for the Mentally Retarded also supports the plan and is enthusiastically joining us in its implementation. Again it is the member's right, if he wants to, to get up and say that the MTAMR is supporting an ill-conceived plan.

Regarding the second question, that there is a gross underestimation of the services required in the community, in the numbers I read earlier this afternoon -- and I do not think I have to repeat them, although I am perfectly prepared to do so -- we have pointed out that we know what is required out there. We know and have taken into account what we have to do on the basis of that 1,414.

The member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), in one of his brief appearances when he wandered in and out the other night, said: "We do not know what the waiting list is. We think it is around 500: it could be 1,000." Even at the upper limits we obviously are aware of the need in the community in addition to those who are in the facilities.

I would like to point out something else, particularly with respect to the question of ensuring that the proper services will be available before they are phased out. I touched on that this afternoon, but I would like to refer to the St. Lawrence Regional Centre, since it has already been mentioned. At the present time, staff in that centre are consulting with parents, residents, local officials and community groups in finalizing the planning for residents and staff of the St. Lawrence Regional Centre. A specific plan has been developed for each resident in the facility and these plans have been discussed with those parents who have been actively involved.

At the present time, three group homes are being established in the areas surrounding Brockville and the ministry is proceeding to develop additional residential spaces in the city. No doubt my friend and colleague the member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman) will have some things to say about this in Brockville in the very near future. I have not seen anybody from the other groups in Brockville.

In addition, the facility has been arranging placements of residents in group home beds that are currently vacant in several areas in eastern Ontario, including Ottawa, Bancroft and Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. We have found community agencies very accommodating and helpful in this process and supportive in the placement of residents.

Let me say once again that no institutional resident will be discharged to community life until a specific alternative that meets his or her particular need has been found.

3:50 p.m.

I also want to point out that this can hardly be an emergency when it is based upon a report that is so old and so outdated that it led to this ministry receiving the jurisdiction for the care of the mentally retarded with the mandate to go forward with deinstitutionalization; that is the Williston report.

I would also point out that as we move closer to the phase-out target date, we will be consulting with parents and with a large number of groups. I have not been sending hit men or anybody else. As we move closer to the date, we have been sending people who are discussing the program on a conceptual plan, as we are doing in Brockville, with the individual parents in their own homes.

There is no emergency. We already discussed it for the bulk of question period today.

Mr. Speaker: I have no doubt the subject matter of this motion will be considered of great importance to many people in this province. However, I must point out that this program was announced by the minister in October 1982. Since that time it has been discussed on numerous occasions through October, November, December and, indeed, as recently as last week when the estimates of the ministry were concurred in. There will undoubtedly be many more opportunities as this program, as I understand it, is to be phased in over a five-year period.

For these reasons, I cannot consider that the motion meets the requirement of urgency as required by standing order 31 and I must therefore rule the motion out of order.

Mr. Cooke: What was the use of the five- minute debate?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Are you reading a reply that was written in advance?

Mr. Speaker: No, I have the standing orders in front of me. I have a copy of the motion. The motion is out of order.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, as reluctant as I am to do this, in the interests of those people in our society who cannot defend themselves against the heavy hand of government I am going to challenge your ruling.

4:10 p.m.

The House divided on the Speaker's ruling, which was sustained on the following vote:

Ayes

Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Cousens, Cureatz, Davis, Dean, Drea, Eaton, Elgie, Eves, Gillies, Gregory, Grossman, Havrot, Henderson, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Kells, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk, McCaffrey, McCague, McLean, McMurtry, McNeil, Miller, F. S., Mitchell;

Norton, Piché, Pollock, Pope, Ramsay, Robinson, Runciman, Scrivener, Sheppard, Shymko, Snow, Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Taylor, J. A., Timbrell, Villeneuve, Walker, Welch, Wells, Williams, Wiseman, Yakabuski.

Nays

Allen, Boudria, Bradley, Breaugh, Bryden, Cassidy, Charlton, Cooke, Copps, Cunningham, Di Santo, Edighoffer, Elston, Grande, Johnston, R. F., Laughren, Lupusella, Mackenzie, Martel, McClellan, McEwen, McGuigan, McKessock, Newman, O'Neil, Philip, Rae, Reed, J. A., Reid, T. P., Renwick, Riddell, Ruprecht, Ruston, Sargent, Spensieri, Swart, Worton.

Ayes 55; nays 37.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF TREASURY AND ECONOMICS

On vote 904, economic policy branch; item 3. industrial leadership and development fund:

Mr. Chairman: Does the honourable minister have an opening statement for us?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Chairman, it is not an opening statement as much as to point out that under vote 904, item 3, $70 million is being added to the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development fund. Of that, $50 million will in turn be flowed to ministries of the government of Ontario to cover the spending for job creation that we have authorized for provincial programs.

Also, $20 million of that money is our estimate at this point for the co-operative economic development fund with the federal government, which is a $200-million program, over 18 months. Our share is $20 million, which we expect to be spent in the balance of this fiscal year.

The breakdown of the $50 million that has been allocated to our own ministries is as follows:

Ministry of Community and Social Services under the homes for the aged program, $1.3 million;

Ministry of Correctional Services for correctional institutions, $1.3 million;

Ministry of Colleges and Universities, $8.6 million for colleges and $10.9 million for universities;

Ministry of Education, $4 million for primary and secondary schools;

Ministry of the Environment, $0.6 million;

Ministry of Government Services $2.5 million;

Ministry of Health, $9 million for hospitals.

Ontario Provincial Police facilities under the Ministry of the Solicitor General, $0.8 million;

Winter Experience, $1 million.

The preceding allocations total $40 million. In co-operative programs with the Unemployment Insurance Commission, sections 38 and 39, we have $5 million each, bringing the total to $50 million.

Our section of the $50 million is estimated to create about 7,500 short-term jobs, as we said earlier. That, in effect, is the background to the moneys requested to date.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Did I understand the Treasurer to say $70 million in total? Why do I have $171 million in this supplementary estimate?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I do not know which supplementary estimate the member has.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Maybe the Treasurer could send me a copy of what he has there instead of the one I have here. This is not his second supplementary estimate is it?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Turn to the first page inside the cover. That is the summary of them. The part applying to Treasury and Economics is on pages 1 and 2 and is $70 million. The part applying to the Social Development policy field is $97 million, for a total of $167 million.

My time relates only to the $70 million on pages 1 and 2 of this. Could the member send his copy over so I can compare it?

Mr. T. P. Reid: While that is being done I want to make some preliminary remarks about the supplementary estimates. I think I speak for a lot of people in Ontario when I say we are disappointed with the lack of speed and direction in which these programs have been carried out.

It is interesting, as was noted during the question period, that the Treasurer's estimate of the number of employed in Ontario in December 1982 was off by 334,000 people. In fact, in spite of the 125,000 jobs he thought were going to be created, 209,000 fewer Ontarians were employed in December than in May, bringing the total of those without jobs to 334,000 more than he indicated in his budget.

It is a sad commentary on the bureaucracy and red tape we have in government today that both the federal and provincial governments have been so slow to respond in terms of knowing the unemployment situation in Ontario and in Canada was going to continue to get worse in the fall months and over the winter.

4:20 p.m.

I bring to the minister's attention a story on page 3 of the Toronto Star today about a person ordinarily a friend of the minister and of this government, the chairman of Metropolitan Toronto. The headline reads, "$280 Million Plan Useless to Jobless: Godfrey."

I would like to read into the record what Mr. Godfrey is quoted as saying: "Ottawa and Queen's Park's highly touted $280 million make-work scheme is 'ill-conceived' and won't help many of Metro's desperate jobless this winter, Metro Chairman Paul Godfrey charges."

It goes on to say, "The provincial and federal governments are getting little bang from their bucks and will end up with a hodgepodge of small projects instead of major projects needed to create a lot of jobs,' he said." Further down in the article Godfrey is quoted as saying, "the job creation scheme was conceived 'out of panic with no long-term planning given any consideration.'"

The Treasurer has indicated briefly where the money is going of the $50 million he is putting up. I would like him to assure us of the criterion he set originally. It was that the money in these programs would be going to those areas where there is high unemployment -- that would be the priority. Areas where there was less unemployment and perhaps other opportunities would receive considerably less.

I trust the Treasurer will agree that was what he told us before but, in consultation with or asking the various ministries which are dealing on a day-to-day basis with this program they are not going by that criterion at all.

For instance, spokesmen for both the Ministry of Correctional Services and the Ministry of Government Services stated their only major criteria for allocating funds are the needs for repair work in the various institutions and buildings, with some consideration being given to labour intensity of different proposals. According to them, local economic conditions are not a criterion. It is also unclear whether any consideration of local unemployment is made in allocations to hospitals which are made on the basis of a review of proposals received from the hospitals.

Since there is obviously some dispute between the Treasurer and the various ministries as to what the criteria are, will the Treasurer assure us he will clarify the matter by issuing a directive instructing all ministries to use local employment levels as a major criterion in making allocations? I hope he will reconfirm that today.

What particularly bothers me about this program has been the response of the government. I would have thought we were in some kind of restraint or constraint position not only since the last May budget but even before that -- going back to 1976 when Mr. McKeough was Treasurer.

One would have thought there was a whole list of capital projects, building projects and short-term and long-term programs sitting on the shelves in almost every ministry, as well as requests to the ministry through the municipalities. school boards, etc., that could have been taken off the shelf. I refer to projects and programs about which it could be said: "All right, there we are. There is something we can start on."

For instance, I have been told the capital costs under the Wintario program have been frozen for five years. We are told under social services that their capital budgets are strained to the utmost. Why are these projects not being brought forward? Why have we seen, as of January 24, 1983, as far as I know, that projects entailing only something like 157 people have been announced? We have been talking in this House about the unemployment program since last October and November -- even in September when we first came back. Where are the 7,500 going to come from which the Treasurer has just indicated are presumably going to flow from this $70 million?

It is interesting the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops should have come out with a statement just before Christmas in which they expressed their concern about the state of unemployment in Canada and made a few other remarks relating to economic matters. I must say I was not particularly sympathetic to them at that point. I had some reservations about what they were saying, along with a lot of other people, I presume. They indicated that the current rate of unemployment in Ontario and Canada -- they were talking about Canada -- was verging on immorality.

What I find completely immoral is the fact that we have money in these programs. Supposedly we have a $200 million agreement in principle between Canada and Ontario for job creation programs and we have $50 million more immediately available that the Treasurer has been talking about throwing in since before Christmas, yet we do not see any actual people at work on them.

We can go through what has happened so far. Allocations to school boards were only announced this week and 55 per cent of the funding for hospitals is still uncommitted. Only a small percentage of the jobs created through work at correctional institutions and government buildings is now under way. Likewise, little action has yet commenced on additional section 38 jobs and section 39 job-training programs funded with $10 million from the unilateral program. The Treasurer referred to that but very little has been done.

Some of the section 39 expenditures by the Ontario Manpower Commission may well come after the March 31 deadline for the program. How the Treasurer justified this slow response is beyond me. I realize there have been other problems. The problems of the trust companies have taken over centre stage in Ontario, but surely the problems of the unemployed are still with us.

We have had a report from Metro social services about the 3,500 and possibly double that number who are single and homeless in Toronto alone, never mind the rest of the province. We see that people are writing letters threatening suicide because they do not have jobs, yet we see very little actually going on.

Mr. Godfrey indicates in his remarks that this is all a public relations stunt so it will appear as if the government is doing something. I suppose if they announced a $200 million fund often enough and then an additional $50 million unilaterally from Ontario, presumably the people out there walking the streets will be convinced that the government is taking some action.

We have said on this side and in this party that we realize there are no easy solutions, but it still seems to us that given the backlog of projects -- I could name 20 or 30 in my constituency alone and others across northern Ontario that could be beefed up -- some of this money could go into them. It would be to the benefit not only of the unemployed but to the community as well. Why has that not been done?

What is immoral about this is the fantastic amount of red tape and the wrangling between federal and provincial officials, and even between provincial officials, as to how this money is going to be spent.

Mr. Godfrey also threw into the hopper the fact that these short-term programs were not going to be of much benefit to anyone. It seems to me if we can assist those who are either without unemployment insurance or whose unemployment insurance is running out, if we can tide them over for some time until the economy, we hope, picks up again, it would be of some good. But surely, among these things, there could have been long-term propositions. More could have been done under sections 38 and 39 to provide more permanent jobs and permanent benefits.

4:30 p.m.

It just boggles my mind that we have almost 80,000 civil servants in this province, presumably a large part of whom could bend some effort to coming up with some imaginative and practical ways of putting the minister's 7,500 people to work, so that something more would be available to us and the minister would be able to give us a fuller report.

I wonder whether the minister, in talking of his $50 million unilateral program, can tell us when he expects all the funds to be distributed, when he expects all the 7,500 people who supposedly will be employed through this program to be at work, and what he is going to do about section 38 and section 39 people. Will they be employed at something before the March 31 deadline? Can he explain why we are now almost at the end of January and very few of the people who were supposed to be assisted by this program are employed? Can he give us some firm numbers as to how many people are now employed under this program?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Chairman, I think my friend the critic has made an error in his estimation. There is a figure out there for 157 jobs, which he said was the only positive action he had seen to date. My understanding is that this is for projects approved to date under the Canada-Ontario employment development program and relates to some $1.2 million to $1.3 million of allocation.

Second, the comments allegedly made by the chairman of Metropolitan Toronto also relate to the COED program. If the member goes back into the history of that program and the negotiations that went on between Ottawa and Ontario throughout the month of November and in early December, he will find that Ontario consistently said it hoped for a less cumbersome approval procedure, particularly as it related to projects that were suitable for tendering.

The fact is, however, that the federal government understandably gave as its first priority the need to assist people who not only were out of work but had exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits. The condition for all provincial governments wishing to co-operate with the federal government was that this had to be the target group. That ties in very closely to the comments my friend made about having the assistance go to the areas where the problems were greatest. It does however, complicate both the municipalities' participation and indeed Ontario's.

I could be quite specific and say that the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) would very much like to have a chunk of the $2 million, and I would very much like him to have some. Under normal conditions, he could take some of those shelf jobs the member talked about up in Rainy River district, doing Highway 11 between Atikokan and Fort Francis.

Mr. T. P. Reid: And Highway 621 -- a whole bunch of them.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes. We could name the ones. I just thought I would get them on the record for the member's sake, knowing he is too shy to mention his own for the riding's sake.

The minister could quickly turn those around and call tenders on them and have the work under way early this spring or, in some cases, have brushing done this fall. So far, in spite of the intercessions on his behalf by the government of Ontario, we have not made a lot of progress. We have made some. We have now got to the point where the federal government has accepted that tendering will be permitted for jobs that qualify. We believe that is a step forward.

We believe that if we continue in our day-to-day discussions with them -- and, contrary to what the member said, they are going on quite smoothly -- we can keep pressing for more relaxed ways of getting some of these shelf projects, which are a little bigger than some of the smaller ones the municipalities may have, into the works.

Let me go to the other side: the 7,500 jobs and the $50 million. Within two or three days of announcing the program in the House I then allocated the amounts the member heard me read into the record to each ministry. They had already sent me detailed lists of shelf projects. In some cases the allocation exactly matched the value of the projects the ministry had asked for, and naturally in some cases the ministries had asked for more than they got. That is one of the reasons I could not read the lists I had with me: to be sure they are the ones the ministries have ended up choosing in some cases.

The money is to flow and must be spent in this fiscal year -- that is why we are here for supplementary estimates -- and the jobs have to be and are being created. They started being created almost at once. I know of one in my riding, for example -- just by coincidence even my riding gets the odd job -- which was under way within about two weeks. Last week in the local papers there were pictures of people being hired. Ontario simply did not put the stumbling blocks in the way of hiring and quoting and tendering that went along with the COED program, and that is why the money could be spent more quickly.

My argument at the time was that $50 million spent in three months had a higher monthly impact than the $200 million over 18 months; that it in no way restricted Ontario from having more programs at the end of March or whenever the budget comes along; that those programs will be tailored to the state of the economy as it existed then; and that we were quite anxious to see jobs created without saying necessarily that the person getting the job had then to be unemployed and without benefits. We simply said we wanted more jobs in the economy, because inevitably that brought people back to work somewhere in the system who did not have work.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Can the minister assure us, first of all, that the $50 million will be completely spent by the end of the fiscal year? Second, given that we are into the fourth week of January, is he prepared to table by the end of January a list of the areas and the kinds of jobs that have been created so we can see how closely he is meeting his target of 7,500 jobs?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I think I can do that. I could have easily read the lists here today, as I say. My problem is twofold at this point. I am not sure that in every instance the ministry has called the job. Therefore, what we did was to give them that money and say, "Since you have the projects ready, please get them out." I understand that some ministries did it almost at once; others may be a little slower in calling them. But obviously they have to be done quickly, I agree with the member on that.

Mr. T. P. Reid: May I ask my last question for now? Because so many of these programs now are popping around, or at least announced if not operative all the time, did the minister not indicate in his $50-million unilateral program that those areas of highest unemployment would receive the most assistance on the basis of the number of unemployed? Was that one of his main criteria, and is it still that way?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am not going to either deny or confirm it, because I cannot remember having said that we were directing it towards areas of highest unemployment. We certainly hoped to see the areas of highest unemployment get the benefit. However, we were moving in a much shorter time frame than the federal program, where that kind of overview was supposed to go on. In fact, if the member will recall, the federal government has some kind of provincial co-ordinating committee of some seven people, I think, which is supposed to be saying, "We would like to see more spent in Windsor or more spent in Sudbury," therefore in effect channelling or initiating requests from those areas.

For all that one hears the reactions of municipalities each time to any federal or federal- provincial job creation program that in turn requires them to put up some money, I have to say that we almost inevitably find that the number of requests far exceeds the available money.

4:40 p.m.

What my colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) did, since he is charged with running the COED program specifically, was to see that $50 million of the $200 million was sent out on an allocation basis to municipalities. I will try to find out for the member, I hope this afternoon, what his basis for allocation was.

The last time, when my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) did it, they used, as the member knows, the general welfare figures for municipalities to give them some measure of the relative need of municipalities. I suspect, without being sure, that was a criterion -- the member is shaking his head "no." He could be right. I will find out.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Chairman, I want to make a few brief comments. Before I get into what I had prepared, it is my understanding that the allocation to the municipalities was not based on the welfare rates. That is one of the specific requests my local municipality is making, that it be changed when the next allocation in the next fiscal year comes through in order that the needs of local communities based on their welfare rates are reflected in the amount of money allocated to the municipalities. The minister may be able to correct me, but it is the interpretation, at least of Windsor, that it was not allocated on the welfare rates.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Chairman, may I answer that? That was the first question, the one I was getting as he was talking. We were told the first $50 million was based on the welfare rolls, the number of exhaustees and the unemployment levels. The arithmetic for that allocation was handled by the Ontario Manpower Commission, I believe, in conjunction with the other ministries involved. I cannot give the honourable member the arithmetic for it, but that is what we were told the basis was.

Mr. Cooke: I have a few brief comments on the jobs program itself and perhaps a few comments about the suggestions in the paper that were put out by the bishops which I think offer an alternative to the kind of economic recovery or Band-Aid solutions both the federal and provincial governments are taking now.

When that program was announced, I found it very interesting. I think it was on a Thursday that the press releases went out to the members of the Legislature, announcing the program. I got a call from a Windsor Star reporter asking whether there had been an allocation or whether I knew what the allocation was for Windsor. I said I had not been told. He said most of the Tory members in the Hamilton region had already been informed and they had announced to the Hamilton Spectator what Hamilton and some of the other municipalities were getting.

It would appear that on the Thursday the Tories were scrambling to make announcements in their local communities because the following day, at least in my home-town community, Mr. MacGuigan, Mr. Gray and Mr. Whelan called a grand press conference, with all the labour and business leaders and all the municipal elected politicians, to announce the federal program and to try to take credit for that allocation.

It seemed as if in those last two days there was a great scrambling effort by both the provincial and federal governments to try to take credit for a program that can be described only as less than adequate in the face of more than 12 per cent unemployment in this province and country. The December unemployment rate was 12.1 per cent, 548,000 people.

There is no doubt that some job creation is better than no job creation. There is no doubt that the slowness of the program is a problem. I would suggest the Treasurer perhaps should table some kind of a document before the House rises from the short resumption of the session. Perhaps the Minister of Labour or whoever is taking the prime responsibility should do it to update us as to how many jobs have been created under this program.

We knew this would be a tough winter. It is unfortunate that programs like this were not put into place much earlier so the jobs were created in December or late November. Some of the people relying on welfare to get through the winter would have been working and would have been able to get back on the unemployment insurance rolls, which at least would have provided them with a bit more income.

When one looks at where the allocations are coming from and from where the federal government has reallocated some of its money, it is really questionable whether Ontario will benefit, not in terms of jobs but in terms of more money being put into our economy. Much of the money is coming out of Ontario and being reallocated for jobs all across the country, and the net increase in the dollar value being put back into Ontario's economy is probably going to be less than what is being taken out.

The 20 per cent contribution on the part of the municipalities for that $50 million is a problem. I am not sure of the condition of all the municipalities, but my home town, because of the length of the recession and depression that has hit it, is going to have great difficulty coming up with that 20 per cent to create any jobs.

Of course, most of the projects are going to be short-term and will not do much in the way of long-term benefit or the creation of long-term jobs. Certainly any kind of a stimulation of the economy may create consumer demand and some jobs, but there are questions as to whether all this money will be able to be taken up by municipalities because of the 20 per cent contribution requirement.

It really is an inadequate response in reaction to an unemployment crisis that is far greater than anyone would have projected a year or a year and a half ago. The last statistics showed that even officially one of our communities, Sudbury, has more than 30 per cent unemployment. Of course, the unemployment rate in the Niagara Peninsula is more than 20 per cent.

When one takes a look at the jobs that have been lost in certain sectors of the economy, one is convinced that this government has to develop an industrial strategy for sectors of this economy. We have lost 209,000 jobs since the May budget. In agriculture, we have lost 20,000 jobs. In manufacturing, we have lost 82,000 jobs. In transportation, we have lost 11,000 jobs. In the service sector, we have lost 19,000 jobs. The list goes on and on of the major sectors of the economy where thousands of jobs have been lost since the May budget.

The layoff statistics that were released by the Ministry of Labour in November also indicate the contrast between 1981, when we were getting into the recession, and how hard and difficult 1982 has been. The total reduced operations are up by 218.2 per cent from January to November, 1982 over 1981. Partial closures are up by 23.3 per cent and complete closures are up by 39.6 per cent. The total figure of layoffs -- and, of course, this is only for layoffs of 50 or more employees -- for January to November 1982 is up by 143.3 per cent, as compared to the corresponding period in 1981.

The statistics that shocked me the most were the bankruptcy statistics. From January to November, there were 3,337 business bankruptcies with $615 million worth of liabilities associated with those companies, as compared to the total figure for 1981 of 2,900 business bankruptcies with $341 million worth of liabilities. We are talking of nearly doubling the amount of money involved with those business bankruptcies; that is just in Ontario.

4:50 p.m.

I want to spend a few minutes talking about a statement that was very important and very useful in that it did create some discussion within our communities, within our province and within our nation about the economic situation that exists. I refer to the statement released by the bishops. The bishops always release a statement at the beginning of the year. This is the first one that got considerable response throughout our country -- some of it negative and some of it less than helpful, such as the response the Prime Minister gave; none the less, it has got a lot of people thinking about the direction that our province and our country is heading in and whether there is a better way to create wealth and create jobs and share wealth within our province.

I want to quote briefly from this statement and then make some of my own comments. The first page of the document says:

"Indeed, we recognize that serious economic challenges lie ahead for this country. If our society is going to face up to these challenges, people must meet and work together as a 'true community' with vision and courage. In developing strategies for economic recovery, we firmly believe that first priority must be given to the real victims of the current recession, namely, the unemployed, the welfare poor, the working poor, pensioners, native factory workers and some small business men and women.

"The option calls for economic policies which realize that the needs of the poor have priority over the wants of the rich; that the rights of workers are more important than the maximization of profits; that the participation of marginalized groups take precedence over the preservation of a system which excludes them.

"In response to the current economic problems, we suggest that priority be given to the following short-term strategies.

"First, unemployment rather than inflation should be recognized as the number one problem to be tackled in overcoming the present crisis. The fact that some 1.5 million people are jobless constitutes a serious moral, as well as economic, crisis in this country. While efforts should continually be made to curb wasteful spending, it is imperative that primary emphasis be placed on combating unemployment.

"Second, an industrial strategy should be developed to create permanent and meaningful jobs for people in local communities. To be effective, such a strategy should be designed at both national and regional levels. It should include emphasis on increased production, creation of new labour-intensive industries for basic needs and measures to ensure job security for workers.

"Third, a more balanced and equitable program should be developed for reducing and stemming the rate of inflation. This requires shifting the burden from wage controls to upper-income earners and introducing controls on prices and new forms of taxes on investment income.

"Fourth, greater emphasis should be given to the goal of social responsibility in the current recession. This means that every effort must be made to curtail cutbacks in social services, maintain adequate health care and social security benefits and, above all, guarantee special assistance for the unemployed, welfare recipients, the working poor and one-industry towns suffering from plant shutdowns.

"Fifth, labour unions should be asked to play a more decisive and responsible role in developing strategies for economic recovery and employment. This requires the restoration of collective bargaining rights where they have been suspended." That, of course, refers to the wage control legislation that has been introduced in this province and at the federal level.

The bishops go on to talk about the structural problems that exist in our economy. They also talk about the long-term effects of automation, the consequences of the multinational corporate control of our economy and the transfer of capital and jobs by multinationals to low-wage countries. I want to quote again from the bishops' statement:

"By placing greater importance on the accumulation of profits and machines than on the people who work in a given economy, the value, meaning and dignity of human labour is violated. By creating conditions for permanent unemployment, an increasingly large segment of the population is threatened with a loss of human dignity. In effect, there is a tendency for people to be treated as an impersonal force having little or no significance beyond their economic purpose in the system."

The bishops go on to condemn the philosophy that seems to be reviving itself in our society, and that is the philosophy of survival of the fittest. We saw that philosophy come forward in last year's budget where the Treasurer consistently used the term "the losers versus the winners" and said this government is on the side of the winners.

I guess the same philosophy comes through very clearly, in the wage control legislation that came in and when the welfare rates are set by this province: this province believes very strongly in the survival-of-the-fittest theory, whether it be in the small business community or whether it be individuals. If they are doing well, they can take advantage of the tax system and of the economy. If they are doing poorly, they cannot count on this government to assist them or to take any steps that provide for greater equity and fairness within our economy.

The bishops point to the fact that the government's strategy for recovery is based totally on the private sector. Therefore, the problem, in the view of this government, is that of inflation and how to control it. By controlling inflation through setting wages, this government has caused a transfer of wealth from the workers through to profits and to the companies, on the assumption that those profits then will be reinvested and create more profits. So we have the trickle-down theory that the unemployed and welfare recipients eventually will get jobs, all will be well and our economy will be operating again.

The bishops have put forward an alternative that I find very interesting and certainly very much in tune with the philosophy I and my party believe in very strongly. They have proposed a reordering of priorities. In the view of the bishops, treating unemployment as an inevitable consequence of high inflation is an unfair, immoral and unacceptable system. It means fighting inflation through unemployment and through high interest rates, which this government supported until it became politically unpopular to do so: it was the only time it changed its position on high interest rates.

We must have emphasis on a new industrial strategy. The industrial strategy suggested by the bishops is self-sufficiency of Canadian industries. I suggest that means a program of import replacement, a program of regional development similar to what I mentioned earlier and which they have talked about, strengthening our manufacturing sector, regional development and relevant job retraining.

Industrial strategies on a regional basis, the bishops say, should involve the communities, local organizations and labour unions. The strategy calls for a redistribution of wealth, an examination of the use of community ownership and control and new forms of worker management and ownership.

There are many concepts there that I am sure the Treasurer could not possibly support, based on his philosophical and ideological background and beliefs. But there are some very realistic suggestions, I believe, and there are some thought-provoking suggestions that should be debated by members of this Legislature and by people within our communities.

It is obvious that the present Band-Aid system of short-term jobs is useful in the short term, but in the long-term there is no real change, no real attack on the structural difficulties that exist in our economy or on the lack of adequate sharing of the wealth in our province and within our country. We have to begin to recognize that the system is not working.

In the 1970s we had two or three recessions. The same people are being hurt time and time again, and the same communities are being hurt time and time again. A system that constantly operates on a roller coaster is not a system that is working for the benefit of the majority of the people in this country and this province. For that reason alone, examination of the alternatives that the bishops have put forward, which I think are very useful, deserves considerable thought and debate.

I want to go back again to some of the community problems that exist, because I think the real effects of the system that is not working are shown when one goes, as I did last Friday, to places like St. Thomas.

Maybe the Treasurer does not know that in St. Thomas, which is not a huge city, there are 30 empty stores on Talbot Street, the main street. Those are small businesses that at one point were thriving and have gone belly up because of the situation that exists in our communities and in our province.

5 p.m.

I do not pretend to be an expert on agriculture, but I spoke with the mayor of Aylmer, who told me that because of the devaluation of farms in the province, because of the state of the economy and because of prices, farmers are now in a position where they cannot borrow against their farms and as a result there are going to be farmers in the St. Thomas-Elgin area who will not be planting crops this year. They planted them last year, but they do not have access to enough capital and they cannot borrow in order to plant this year. So we have 30 small businesses and we have farmers in some of the richest agricultural areas in our province who are not able to get back into business this year.

In my home town, McInnis Equipment Ltd., an operation that has been in business in Windsor for 50 years, went into receivership, putting 175 people out of work just a couple of weeks ago. Windsor Packing Co. Ltd., another company that has been in business for a number of years, has gone belly up. Not only has it gone into receivership, it has now gone into bankruptcy. We see the cancellation of the 1,000 jobs by Chrysler Corp. and perhaps their transfer to Trenton in the United States, again an example of a multinational company that one day is going to create jobs and the next day is going to transfer them. They play worker against worker.

Surely all of these, along with the thousands of other layoffs that are occurring all across our province, point to the need to examine a new system, a reordering of our priorities, a change in our philosophy that puts those people -- the working people of this province, the ordinary people of our province, the unemployed and the welfare recipients of our province -- as our number one priority.

It is time to throw out the trickle-down theory and to talk about a genuine redistribution of wealth in this province, the creation of wealth and the creation of jobs. The fairness of the society is what we should be looking at. Profits mean nothing if they are not shared and if they do not do the majority of the people in our society good. If our standard of living does not increase, if that wealth is not shared equitably and if the profits and wealth are accumulated in the hands of very few, then certainly amassing profits and having profitable corporations does not do much to benefit our society as a whole.

I think this is the point that the bishops were trying to get across, and for the Prime Minister of this country to throw them out out of hand without giving them any thought and for him to say more or less that they do not have a right to contribute to the economic debate that is occurring in our country was very unfortunate on his part. I hope this afternoon we will be able to use this debate, along with others, to discuss their option, to take a look at this job creation program as a symptom of how sick our economy is and how ineffective the response of governments like the one we have in Ontario really is at a time of very deep recession and, in many communities, very deep depression.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Chairman, listening to the discussion makes me realize how different the approach of the New Democratic Party is from ours but how similar the goals are.

Mr. Laughren: Come on.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The goals are the same, contrary to what the members opposite may say. We have recognized, as they may not recognize, the community of interest between the corporation and the individual. They have some funny feeling that a corporation is an entity that does not have any human side to it at all that the creation of profit somehow must be made at the expense of somebody's loss; that the redistribution of wealth rather than concentration on the increase in available wealth is the only way to solve the social ills of a society.

I say there is not a constant pie out there. The pie that is to be divided up and that will be divided up by all governments that have a conscience today -- and those are governments like our own -- depends very much upon our ability to make the pie bigger rather than our ability to carve it away from somebody who appears to be doing better in society than his neighbour.

The member will be on that side of the fence for ever, that is fine. It is an honest difference of opinion. I have every bit as much right to have my opinion. My colleague the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) has chided me a bit in the past. He wonders how I can be a Conservative having understood some of the problems and having lived through them in our earlier days, as he did as well. It is a question of what we believe works best for the average working person, whom we do not really expect sits back and philosophizes about what works, but simply hopes for and works hard for a better place in this world. I happen to be on his side and I think the member is.

I wonder how often in this life we have to disprove the fact that the state as the decision maker can improve the lot of human beings. We have seen it at work in the socialist countries behind the Iron Curtain. I am not talking about communism now; do not let me use that bogyman. I am simply talking about the approach to the ownership of assets in a socialist country. We have seen the tremendous problems they have finding any quality products to export to earn hard dollars or any volume of exports to send out at all. We have seen the failure of their agricultural system whenever the individual's personal incentive is taken away.

For example, they tell me Poland uses 82 per cent of the gross value of its exports simply to service the interest on foreign debts. The member will tell me that has nothing to do with what he is talking about. It certainly does. It proves the system he has been espousing and sponsoring does not work. At least in my mind it does not work.

Mr. Stokes: That is baloney and you know it.

Hon. F. S. Miller: It is not.

Mr. Stokes: We are not advocating emulating something that is going on in the Iron Curtain countries.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am talking about socialism, the ownership of assets. Where it works well is in a small company where one can participate with employees and distribute profits. It works in big companies too. I have been through Dofasco, where I believe they have always had some form of profit sharing for the employees and it works reasonably well in that company. On the other hand, in little companies such as the ones I have been involved in with my own family, we always go on the basis that the workers have to have a share in the profits through equity. The equity they put up may not be prorated with somebody else's, but they have to have a fair share of what is earned as well as their daily pay.

I was intrigued at the reaction of the bishops and the statements they made. It is true many of the things they said are basically the member's party's philosophy. The church itself did not have unified support or condemnation of the bishops' position. I think if one went into the church and asked a number of priests or even the cardinal, one would find there was not total support for that. However, they have a right to offer their point of view. I support that right.

Mr. Cassidy: The cardinal is the only bishop who spoke up that way.

Interjections.

Hon. F. S. Miller: All of a sudden, I am on their favourite point. I suspect we talk to blank walls both ways.

They can use grand words like "a national strategy" or "cut wasteful spending." Then if we are trying to close a facility in St. Thomas or Goderich, they will turn around and say: "That cannot be wasteful spending. You cannot do that." The trouble with grand words like "national strategy" and "wasteful spending" is that they are easy to support as words and difficult to turn into specifics. When one talks about these things, of course one will get support.

Would that there was a national strategy to solve all the problems. Would that when I had appendicitis, I could wish it away. The member is trying to wish away economic problems by putting out --

Mr. Cooke: Who is talking about wishing. Have confidence and all will be well.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I have a lot more confidence in the system as it used to be than in the system that has been diluted through a gradual erosion by socialistic ideals, as has the economy of this province. It is nowhere near as right wing as I believe it should be.

Mr. Cooke: The system is working well in Canada.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Those points of view are easy to get support for. In certain areas, I agree completely.

Mr. Cassidy: Like the takeover of Sun Oil; is that right?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am delighted to see more involvement of unions and management. I hope the member is as anxious as I am to see a reduction in the confrontation between those groups. It worries me to go across to the United States --

Mr. Cassidy: That is why you brought in Bill 179; is that right?

5:10 p.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Is the member missing his classes today?

Mr. Cassidy: I am here to listen to you.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Just to listen to me he missed the classes? A full-time student in the House.

Mr. Cassidy: I came to listen to how you are reducing confrontation by Bill 179.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I read Stephen Lewis's comments about the last three years of the party. He did not say it was leadership. He just said the problems had been a bit difficult.

Mr. Cassidy: What about the economy of the province we are in? You have been the Treasurer for how long?

Hon. F. S. Miller: For four and a half years; but the member's turn is coming, just calm down.

I guess what I try to point out is that most companies, be they big or small, and we started on that, are owned by people. Sooner or later a share is owned by an individual.

I would argue with my friend that the best way to improve things is to encourage more people, more average people, to have the equity in those companies rather than talk about some fancy, airy-fairy way of redistributing the assets. That is what the member does not believe.

I am glad the members are all laughing. I feel much more reassured when the NDP benches get angry at me and laugh than if they listened and nodded their heads wisely and agreed with me. At least I know I must be on the right course when that is happening.

An hon. member: The union pension plans own a lot of companies these days.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes, they do. They have very vested interests in seeing that those --

Mr. Ruprecht: Get serious, don't humour us.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Of all the socialist countries that have found some degree of real GNP growth -- I am thinking of those behind the Iron Curtain -- probably Yugoslavia has done the best, because they at least turned the assets over to the workers.

Mr. Cassidy: Would you mind calling them communist countries?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I know it hurts the member to hear they are socialists too.

Mr. T. P. Reid: They call themselves social democrats, I understand.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes. It worries the member to have the stigma attached. I am not talking about a dictatorship, the way they rule the country; I am talking about the economic belief that the state should own the assets. That is what the members party believes in, no matter how he cuts it.

Interjections.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. Gentlemen, the interruptions are becoming rude.

Mr. Breaugh: Why don't you talk about this province? That would be good. Talk about Crown Trust.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The Treasurer has the floor. When he has completed, the opportunity can go to the other honourable members.

Mr. Cassidy: Talk about Hydro, Polar Gas, your friends.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. There is every opportunity for all members to participate in this debate. The Treasurer has the floor, but with the interruptions now prevailing --

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The Treasurer is distorting the policies of his own party.

The Deputy Chairman: That is yet to be decided in this House. The chair is clearly wanting to give the Treasurer an opportunity to respond, then other members may also participate. I would ask all members to cease and desist in the interruptions.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I will try to be less provocative too.

The Deputy Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Stokes: Stop hiding behind the Iron Curtain then.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am not hiding behind the Iron Curtain. I am hiding behind a belief in the ownership of assets which the member's party espouses.

Mr. Cooke: Why don't you talk about free countries, the social democratic countries, West Germany and the Scandinavian countries?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I will talk about France. Let me talk about France. That is a free country, is it not? It is a social democratic country, is it not? Since Mitterrand got in power we have seen the franc drop from four to the dollar to seven to the dollar. We have seen unemployment go up. We have seen all kinds of problems. We have seen them step in and have to control wages. We have seen them step in and have to control benefits. That is a social democratic country and it is not behind the Iron Curtain.

Mr. Laughren: What about here?

Mr. Breaugh: Good thing you didn't do that. You wouldn't do that, would you?

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. Laughren: Talk about here.

The Deputy Chairman: Order please.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The words Crown Trust came out in the middle of all that from the member for Oshawa. I am not going to get into Crown Trust.

One interesting aspect of the whole deal that precipitated it all was this: assuming that Arabs bought those properties -- assuming they did, and I do not know that for a fact -- I would only say to the member it is interesting they would choose this province as one of the safest havens in the world for their money. That is all I would say.

Mr. Breaugh: Were they in for a surprise!

Hon. F. S. Miller: They trust it here better than they trust it anywhere else, no matter what it earned.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Do they still feel that way?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Municipal governments were referred to, and I think my colleague referred to Windsor and the problems of raising a local contribution. I understand that, but I also point out that is a traditional reaction and the last time around in May when we did it we heard that reaction. Yet we very quickly had requests to oversubscribe the $171 million of total funding, $35 million of which went to municipalities. I think the member will find that happens again.

One of the alternatives to spending it is that 20 per cent happens to be their share of general welfare assistance which goes on. So for many of them it is a question of, "Let us find a project to help local people, whom we are already supporting with some money now, to do something of permanent use to the municipality." Surely that is not a bad objective, because it cuts down their spending on the one hand and allows them to accomplish some objectives with our money and their money on the other.

The member mentioned St. Thomas. I bet I have been on the main street of St. Thomas more times than he has. I used to go there quite often because my daughter went to school in St. Thomas for four years.

Mr. Cooke: It is my understanding that is when the stores started closing.

Hon. F. S. Miller: That is true. Her allowance was so low they did not have any -- anyway, it reflects to a large degree the problems of main street Ontario where we are getting larger and larger concentrations of shopping centres. It is probably the longest main street I know of that is a single main street. Would the member agree with that?

Mr. Cooke: Those closings do not have anything to do with the recession.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I mean they are not paired off as in most towns, like Lindsay and so on, where there are two or three parallel ones.

It also reflects an area that brings up an interesting paradox, that is farm income. It is heavily dependent upon the farm industry. The member referred to farmers as saying the value of land was dropping. I would that farmers in this province were getting a proper return on investment and labour. I suppose there is no one group in society as heavily pressed by today's economic problems as the farmers have been. At the same time, the members opposite tell us food costs too much. I say farmers deserve and are entitled to a much better return.

The fact remains when my friend says farmers will not be planting crops this year; he knows that is a traditional reaction to the problems they face of low prices for soybeans, low prices for corn, low prices for almost everything but the controlled commodities. The laws of supply and demand have brought that about.

At the same time, the member wants lower prices of food for human beings, always alleging that somewhere in the middle there is a huge profit. Yet who did he say went broke in his city? A packer. Does that mean the packer was making too much money? I would only tell him that every time the distribution of food has been looked into no one has found excessive profits in that whole chain of events. That is all I have to say.

The Deputy Chairman: Thank you. The member for Parkdale.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Chairman, I think I get the floor now.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes, he does.

The Deputy Chairman: I am sorry I thought you had had --

Mr. Stokes: We are not in second reading.

The Deputy Chairman: I know. The member for Windsor-Riverside may continue. I will recognize the member for Parkdale next.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Chairman, I will take only 30 seconds. I want to express a bit of disappointment that the Treasurer -- I almost said Premier; I know he would like to hear that -- responded to some very serious comments I quoted from the bishops' statement, together with some of my own comments, by somehow trying to relate that to dictatorship communist governments behind the Iron Curtain. I think that lowers the debate to a point where I really question how much of a philosophical discussion and industrial strategy discussion we can have with an individual who wants to lower the debate to that level.

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Chairman, before I tell the Treasurer the concerns I have as the member for Parkdale. I would like to indicate that I am not here to get into a big microeconomic and macroeconomic argument on how to restructure the whole economic and industrial policy of Ontario and Canada. For one thing, the Treasurer is not in the position to change anything; for another, even if he could, I do not think he would want to. In fact, I do not even know where he has disappeared to now. Do you know?

The Deputy Chairman: He indicated he would be right back. I am sure he is within hearing distance.

Mr. Ruprecht: The other point I would like to raise before the Treasurer comes back is the point that was just raised by my New Democratic colleagues. The Treasurer should know that this argument has absolutely nothing to do with Iron Curtain countries. The Treasurer should know that it has absolutely nothing to do with the whole question of taking away incentives.

Although he attacks the previous speaker from the New Democratic Party, he himself has a paucity of ideas in his own bag of economic tricks that he can really address. That is why he is lowering the debate to the point where he brings in Poland and other countries behind the Iron Curtain. I for one object to the Treasurer setting up a straw man to attack because he, as well as his party, speak of very few solutions to economic crises.

When one looks at the supplementary estimates of the Ministry of Treasury and Economics, 1982-83, one thinks he ought to applaud the services he speaks of -- transfer payments for short-term job creation programs and so on. But here is something the minister can do something about, that is the whole question of the tax he has levied on fast foods, chocolates, soft drinks, ice cream, personal hygiene items -- the list goes on and on.

This is something that may almost go to the heart of the matter. Citizens even today are writing and bringing to me petitions that speak of the injustice of having this kind of tax imposed. The reason they are saying that -- I have been in touch with --

The Deputy Chairman: Just so the honourable member can be on topic, we are dealing with the economic policy program, supplementary estimates --

Mr. Ruprecht: Yes, hear me out.

The Deputy Chairman: -- industrial leadership and development fund. I am having trouble tying what you are saying now into that general subject, but I will hear you out.

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Chairman, I will tie this in for you so that even every member of the Conservative caucus can understand what I am talking about and how this link will be established --

The Deputy Chairman: The link.

Mr. Ruprecht: Here is the link. On one hand, the Treasurer says to us, "Here we are spending $70 million on job creation programs --

Mr. Laughren: The chairman is having problems. Don't mumble. We are here to help you.

Mr. Ruprecht: My friend, your turn will come. I hope at that point you can be as clear and precise as we on this side are. Open your mouth so that we can see your teeth.

The Deputy Chairman: Would the members please stop these interruptions and allow the member for Parkdale to speak to vote 904, item 3.

Mr. Ruprecht: The minister speaks of $70 million for the job creation program, and that is a substantial outlay of money. However, superimposing a seven per cent added tax on some of the items I have just mentioned is not only inequitable but defeats the very purpose of his approach to creating employment in Ontario. I would call it a very short-sighted approach. On one hand he is taking millions of dollars away from some of the necessary programs and on the other he is taxing those people who are creating some of the jobs by purchasing the goods.

If one is used to paying 43 cents for a chocolate bar, as an example of an item a person might buy in a small variety store, he would think twice before buying it if he had to pay an additional three cents. As a parent, Mr. Chairman, you would understand that children would think twice about buying that chocolate bar.

You might think this small example is not relevant. I think it is very relevant because it is indicative of the philosophy of the Progressive Conservative government; that is, to tax not only those people who are productive, but to tax even by nickels and dimes the very children of this province who purchase these goods, however small they may be. I said to the Treasurer earlier that this is an indication of the policies he is following. It is indicative that there is an incongruity in the very economic policies he is espousing.

On the micro level we see how this hinders the purchasing -- as I said earlier this is a small example -- of a chocolate bar. If one multiplies that 100,000 times it does not create any more jobs at the chocolate factories. The Treasurer might think this is insignificant but when he talks to the president of Neilson's, for instance -- which I have done -- he will find that even the workers are very much concerned. Indeed it is the workers who in part are signing these petitions that are coming to my desk on a daily basis.

Here we do not have to talk about the communist system. We do not have to talk about really taking away incentives and redistributing the wealth. We talk about a very practical example. When is this Treasurer going to introduce new legislation or strike from the books the seven per cent tax which keeps some of our workers in the unemployment line? We would like to know from the Treasurer when he will do that. Will he do it this year? Will he do it next year? Or will he do it in election year? That is what we want to know.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Tune in to my budget.

Mr. Ruprecht: I will tune in to your budget, Mr. Treasurer.

A second point I am trying to make, Mr. Chairman, which even every member of the Progressive Conservative Party will understand, concerns this whole business of spending more than $200 million on an oil company -- for what they call a "window on an industry." That kind of program, that kind of economic analysis, that kind of economic mistake, is why we have a lack of employment in Ontario.

On one hand we are transferring $70 million for short-term job employment programs, which I think is laudable, but on the other we are taxing people. On the third hand, which only the Treasurer has, he is spending more than $200 million -- perhaps $250 million -- on an oil company that creates no jobs at all. What I would like to hear is how the Treasurer has spent this kind of money -- not peanuts, not nickels and dimes, not $70 million to create how many jobs.

He might turn around and say to me, "Will the honourable member please pay attention, because I have already indicated how many jobs there were." But we on this side have never fully understood how the job creation program, with a $200 million outlay, has helped Ontario. I for one would like to hear the Treasurer respond to the question of how many jobs $200 million has actually bought this province.

Mr. Chairman, even you will understand where the linkages lie. I have pointed out very clearly -- okay, you wave your hands, you open up your arms, and you do not want to believe me, but the linkages are there. They go from nickels and dimes to an outlay of more than $200 million.

So we are not talking about taking away tax incentives; we are not talking about the straw man policy this minister has just produced. What we are talking about is producing employment that is of a significant character. We are not talking about producing short-term employment. That is what this kind of a policy found on page two of the supplementary estimates indicates. This kind of a short-term job creation program really does very little to help workers in Ontario.

I would like to hear from this minister that the short-term job creation programs which he is instituting through this policy will indeed help us out. I would like to find out, for instance, what does he mean by short-term job creation program? Does he mean simply that we are looking at a six-month period and we are saying that within this six months we will create, let us say, 50,000 jobs?

5.30 p.m.

If that is what this minister means by this short-term job creation, then we would like to know what happens after the next six months. I would like to know from the minister what he will do if the $70 million runs out. It seems to be very little compared with the $200 million outlay. What will he be planning in the six months that will follow the short-term job creation program? Does he expect the economy will turn around? Does he expect that after six months or a year he will be in a better financial situation?

What are his future plans for long-term job creation programs? He has not said a thing about these plans and we would like to know what they are. Where are they? Why do we not see that he has a monetary outlay of more than $70 million? What does he plan to do with the economy of Ontario?

The Deputy Speaker: You have asked that question a few times now, so do you want to give the Treasurer time to respond?

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Chairman, the reason I am asking and repeating myself twice is because I want to ensure that I am being understood --

Hon. F. S. Miller: Point of order.

The Deputy Speaker: I recognize the Treasurer for a point of order.

Mr. Ruprecht: I did not finish my sentence.

Hon. F. S. Miller: When my estimates are here I have always agreed to far-ranging debate. This material is not on the supplementary estimates before me.

Mr. Ruprecht: Let me first point out why I have said this in a different way. He has questioned me earlier as to what is the linkage? What does seven per cent have to do with it? What has the $200-million Suncor purchase have to do with economic development? That is the linkage. That is the biggest question we have to ask this Treasurer because he is spending our money.

The biggest question we have not asked him and one we simply have to ask him is one my constituents and I think all of Ontario are asking: what will he do with the economy of Ontario in the next six months? Is this minister not prepared to give us at least a statement of how he sees the future and what he has in store for the economy of this province? Do we not deserve the right to have an answer to this question?

I see the minister is shaking his head.

Hon. F. S. Miller: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Ruprecht: I would like to know from the Treasurer what his answer will be?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am on a point of order. Sit down.

Mr. Chairman, I have been very patient with this gentleman but when I bring a budget out that is exactly what I do. He either does not know the rules of this House or does not follow them.

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Chairman, if I may please continue.

The minister has set up straw men left and right and gone far into the economic bushel because of the lack of economic planning and policy of his government. You have allowed him to use Poland as an example, or any other country behind the Iron Curtain. I for one would like to find out what this minister has in mind for the economy of Ontario.

He thinks he can get up on a point of order and say to me: "You have no right to ask that question on the supplementary estimates," where $70 million is being spent in short-term job creation programs. He talks about the Soviet Union and Poland. Here we are asking him about making a statement about the economy of Ontario and he denies it to the members of this House. What is this? Are we playing charades in this House or are we talking about real job creation for the people of Ontario? We are not playing games; we want to know some answers from this minister.

He might think I am getting upset. Sure I am getting upset when I see him with a straw man. I am asking him to come up with answers. We want to know now.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Where is the linkage with the straw man?

Mr. Ruprecht: Don't distract me. You know every time you people do that what the linkage with the straw man is.

Interjection.

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. Ruprecht: Every time you ask me about this I know well that you people have no answers to the very grave problems in the economic policy of this province.

Interjections.

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Chairman, I will quit simply by asking the minister this.

Mr. Cooke: Don't just quit: resign.

The Deputy Chairman: Order, please. The member for Parkdale is in the process of wrapping up his presentation, to which we can then receive an answer.

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Chairman, I am not the finance critic and consequently I do not want to take up too much time.

Hon. Mr. Norton: That wasn't hard to figure out.

Mr. Ruprecht: I am not here to provide all the answers to the government's economic woes. We are not here to do that. We are here simply to ask the Treasurer some questions, which he refuses even to answer to this House. That is the basic idea and that is my basic point. We want the answers to three questions, that is all, and I am going to sit down after that.

The first question, very specifically so the Treasurer is not in a position to set up another pudding straw man, is when will he withdraw the seven per cent added tax. The people want to know.

The second question is how many jobs has the government created for the consumers and workers of Ontario by purchasing shares in Suncor in the amount of more than $200 million?

Interjections.

Mr. Ruprecht: Question mark; that's right.

Mr. Laughren: It's a number of zeros.

Mr. Ruprecht: The third question is very obvious; I have asked it earlier. I am asking the Treasurer on behalf of my constituents what his policy is for this province for the next six months after he has finished with the short-term job creation program, which will take him about six to eight months? What is his policy after that date?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Chairman, I have watched the official critic slump lower and lower in his chair as this went on.

Mr. T. P. Reid: It was in anticipation of your coming remarks.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes. Of my coming?

Mr. Chairman, the answers, even though they have nothing to do with the vote and item, are, first, future budgets will tell whether the tax will be withdrawn.

Second, the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) many times has repeated how many jobs were created by the $650 million. I hate to tell the honourable member the figure, because we were rather intrigued that he could have sat in this House for the past year and a half and still not know what the value of the Suncor figure was. But that is his privilege, and it shows why advertising has to be repeated often. You have to go to the lowest common denominator before it finally sinks in.

Last of all, I will be talking about the future of the province when I bring out a budget.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, that is an extremely difficult act to follow.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Then don't do it.

Mr. Laughren: I have some sympathy with the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht), because he did not get really good answers to any of the three very pertinent questions he put to the Treasurer.

There are some things that bother me every time the Treasurer gives us his little philosophical discourse on his ideology and how good it is compared with others. It is hard to accept this when one represents communities such as I do and sees what has happened in the Sudbury basin in the last couple of years.

Of course, the minister would say that is the system. It works. That is what makes the system good. Sometimes you have to throw 30 per cent of the people on the unemployment rolls to make the system work. That, in the view of the Treasurer, is fine-tuning his precious economic system. We happen to believe there are better ways of doing it.

5:40 p.m.

The member for Parkdale is absolutely correct. The Treasurer can bring in all the straw men he wants, set them up in front of him and then knock them down. Does he really think that proves anything? It proves absolutely nothing.

I heard the throwaway line, at the end of one of his comments, that his government was not as right wing as he would like it to be. Perhaps he has jumped on the bandwagon of Reaganomics --

Hon. F. S. Miller: I said the province was not.

Mr. Laughren: That is exactly what the Treasurer said.

Perhaps this time he has jumped on the bandwagon at the wrong time. Perhaps he has not noticed what is happening south of the border as a result of Reaganomics. Perhaps he has not noticed what his policies and those of his friends in Ottawa are doing to this country.

Does the Treasurer really believe the agony we are going through these days is absolutely necessary? Does he really believe this is the kind of fine-tuning that is necessary to make his system work? Perhaps it is, but there is an increasing number of people who do not believe we have to go through that, because that is precisely what we were told back in the 1930s.

When my leader the member for York South (Mr. Rae) said in a half-joking way -- at least I think he was half-joking -- that the Premier (Mr. Davis) was looking and sounding increasingly like Herbert Hoover from day to day, he had a point because of the kind of policies that are coming out. It is almost like being on a spiral, with the government doing everything it can to speed up the process of winding things down rather than cranking them up. We went through all this 50 years ago and now we have to go through it again. That is really an outrageous way to run the store.

Some day I would like to see the Treasurer add up for us the costs of unemployment insurance and welfare and, on top of that, the costs of all the short-term make-work projects because, in terms of benefits to our society and to our economy, one must add in the costs of those short-term benefits, which will not be of long-run benefit to the communities in which they occur; but that is never done.

I could take the Treasurer to Sudbury and show him the shooting-range targets that have been repainted in the name of a make-work project. Is that what he considers an economic policy? It really is outrageous.

What does the government do? Instead of helping a community that has unemployment at between 30 per cent and 40 per cent, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) cuts back on a commitment for an economic relocation program. He cuts back on what had already been promised.

The Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) has been described by someone as a person who stumbles across northern Ontario like a wounded moose in a snowstorm. That man, who is supposed to be looking after the rights of northern Ontario and trying to improve the quality of life in the north, put on hold a project to build a bypass in the Sudbury basin. It was not until people in the community realized what was happening and put the heat on him that it appeared he came to his senses and was going to approve the project -- at least it looks as though he is going to do that; and he had better do so, because there was a very firm commitment made on that project.

The government not only does not do what it should do with work projects in the area, but also it does the wrong kind of project and cuts back on ones that are of long-term benefit. One of the few projects that had long-term benefit was the building of the highway bypass, and that is the one he chose to put on hold. That is absolutely ridiculous.

The government, despite now having a member of the government party representing the riding of Sudbury, so far has not made long-term commitments to the revitalization of that community's economy; just a couple of things were put in place long before the present problem hit us.

It has now been more than a year since Inco announced its first layoffs, and we are looking around to see what is happening. We are having difficulty finding anything but these make-work projects for clearing out a creek or painting signs on targets at a gun club.

That is not good enough. What we from that area are saying now is that we are tired of these spurts of growth as Inco and Falconbridge hire workers only to lay them off later. What we are asking for, and demanding, is economic development, not just economic growth. We have had economic growth in that community before, but we have not had economic development; and there is an enormous difference between those two concepts.

My colleague the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) and I prepared a document last October called A Challenge to Sudbury. It was a document on which we spent some time. We made eight proposals to revitalize the Sudbury community. We sent copies to federal and provincial government ministers. The responses we got back only can be described as pathetic and, in some cases, as downright arrogant. They showed a blissful casualness about the problems in the area. It was outrageous.

It is not just this government. The federal member from that area had the nerve to write back and say, "I received your document and I look forward to reading it." That was his response. He did not even respond to what was in it but said he looked forward to reading it.

I do not take this government off the hook either. The Treasurer and other ministers gave us the back of the hand on the document. Yet we deliberately made proposals that could be accepted by any government regardless of its political stripe. We were careful, because we did not want it to be rejected out of hand for that.

One day when I asked him a question. the Treasurer said, "That was a very thoughtful document;" but there was not one decent response to anything that was in it.

I am sure the Chairman has not seen the document. Let me tell some of the things we proposed. They were not the kind of proposals that should have made this government shy away. We said two things had to happen in Sudbury: one, we had to squeeze more out of the resources that were there; and two, we had to develop new opportunities so we were not so dependent on the existing resource base. That seems to me to be a logical process: balanced economic development for the Sudbury basin.

We wanted to establish a nickel institute. We wanted to have more refining done there and to put an end to all those absolutely crazy, ridiculous exemptions to processing that have allowed Inco to ship all its ore to Norway for refining for 50 years instead of refining it in the Sudbury basin.

We wanted to build mining machinery in the Sudbury area. There is a radical thought: build mining machinery in the heart of the mining industry. But the government decided it would not do that either; it would open up a resources machinery development centre, which was already on the boards anyway. It was not a new program at all; it had been announced two or three times previously. That centre is not going to build one piece of mining machinery. We will go on, presumably forever, importing mining machinery. We are the number one importer of mining machinery in the world, a country that is number three in the world in the production of minerals.

Is the Treasurer telling me that makes sense? Is he telling me that is his precious economic system working the way it should work? He and I know that is not the way his system is supposed to work, but he will not intervene to make it happen. Not only will he not intervene, but also he will not even provide the economic leadership to help it happen. He sits there benignly while the community suffers, and he does not take the measures that would turn things around.

We believe there should be pollution abatement in the Sudbury area. There would have been a beautiful opportunity to do that in the past year. We gave solutions as to how to do it. There was a federal-provincial task force that said how to do it. Nobody was hard-lining on whether the government could provide some up-front money in terms of loan guarantees, loans or equity participation. The Treasurer is big on equity participation unless it comes to something meaningful; then he is not in favour of it.

We wanted to build a fertilizer plant. There are reports now that there will be a sulphur shortage within 10 years. Sulphur mixed with phosphate will produce fertilizer which we currently import. There are phosphate deposits near Chapleau and Kapuskasing, but that would be providing economic leadership which this government is not prepared to provide.

Those were the things we said should be done using the existing resources. There are also new opportunities. We said: "Why not have a massive energy conservation program for the Sudbury basin? Use it as a model community to show how to conserve energy in the residential sector." It would have been an excellent opportunity. It is a northern Ontario community -- a depressed community now -- and we provided specific examples of how it could be tied in with Ontario Hydro.

5:50 p.m.

Second, we said, "Why not make Sudbury a food processing and production centre for northeastern Ontario? There is enormous agricultural food production potential in the Sudbury area, including processing." There was no response at all.

These are not radical proposals, but they do require some economic leadership and the government is not providing it.

The third suggestion was for a health care import replacement program. The federal government and, I believe, all 10 provinces have agreed on a program to replace health care imports into this country. We see no reason why Sudbury could not be the centre for the establishment of a manufacturing capacity in health care products. Many of the imported products are surgical instruments that use stainless steel and precious metals, and it would be a nice way of kicking off some high-technology development in the Sudbury basin. But for some reason, presumably in the Treasurer's mind, and the Treasurer does not even feel the need to explain it, that is just not worth doing.

Another example is an institutional import program. Governments at all levels in this province consume an enormous amount of goods, whether we are talking about staples, furniture or other manufactured goods. There is enormous potential there.

In this Legislature last spring, the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) brought in a box full of goods that this government buys; they are produced here, but this government imports goods it could be buying here.

Those are some of the proposals we made, and we believed they were worthy of serious consideration by this government. I would like the government to tell us why those proposals are not acceptable.

I suppose I could anticipate one of the answers. I do not want to take away the opportunity of the Treasurer to respond, but one of them might be, "We have task forces in the Sudbury area working now." That is true. There are eight or nine task forces under the leadership of the regional chairman. But those task forces now, a year after the problem started, are just starting to get their act together to report back to the regional council. They have not yet reported back to regional council.

They are going to have to go through that process and then report to this government, presumably, and the federal government. In the meantime, this government, and the Treasurer in particular, has used those task forces as an excuse for doing nothing. The people in Sudbury are becoming aware of that fact.

During this past year the government has used what the people in Sudbury have tried to do in good conscience -- they have tried to pull themselves together to make some recommendations -- and this Treasurer and his colleagues have sat back, laughed at the people in Sudbury and said: "While they are doing that, we do not have to do anything."

It seemed to us, my colleague the member for Sudbury East and I, that putting these proposals in front of the government provided an opportunity for them to take some action, and to take some action now. Why wait? Some of them are self-evident. There may be some others they may want to consider as well. We are not saying they have to accept every one of our proposals, but they have not even seriously considered any of them. We find that, and I used the words earlier, pathetic and arrogant. It is a pathetic response, but it is also an arrogant response. They just sit there and ignore them, because local people in Sudbury are out working on task forces and the government says as long as that is going on it does not have to do anything. That is an abrogation of the government's responsibilities, no matter how they measure their responsibility.

A final point: Virtually every one of the alternatives we have suggested here comes from government reports, federal and provincial, but mostly provincial. The government's own people have recommended these proposals for the Sudbury basin. It is not as though we have pulled these ideas out of the air, with our heads in the clouds and so forth. These were proposals made by people who have much more knowledge on these issues than I do.

But the government chose to ignore its own people as well, because it seems to be incapable of providing economic leadership in times of difficulty. That seems to be a problem for the government. It seems to be particularly difficult for this Treasurer, because he has such a blind faith in the market system. He believes it is better to let things go down the tube than to intervene. He really believes that, and we are seeing the results of that inaction.

On a final note, the Treasurer talked about personal incentive. If the Treasurer wants to see how to destroy personal incentive, I want him to drop into the unemployment insurance centre in Sudbury some day. He can come to my constituency office, if he likes, or go to one of the union halls in Sudbury and see how his policies destroy personal incentive. Personal incentive is not destroyed by the fact that the government might own a company in the name of the crown but by the debilitating policies we see now. The bishops were trying to tell him that too, but he chose not to see what they were trying to point out to him.

The Deputy Chairman: I want to thank the honourable member. Does any other member wish to participate?

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, if the Treasurer is yet again not going to respond to all the proposals in our document A Challenge to Sudbury, then perhaps I could put a couple of questions to him. Specifically, I would like to know from the Treasurer -- this comes from a policy paper called Towards a Nickel Policy for the Province of Ontario; I believe the Treasurer was the Minister of Natural Resources in 1977, I could be out a year or so but I believe he was.

That report recommended a nickel institute for the province. Probably one of the most knowledgeable people in all Canada on minerals, Dr. Tom Mohide, was the main author of that report. I am sure the Treasurer knows him. The people making recommendations seem to have a grasp of the mineral industry that goes way beyond mine and the Treasurer's; yet the Treasurer chooses to ignore them because the recommendations do not fit in with his nongame plan, he does not have a game plan.

All they were saying in that document was that there should be an independent geological survey of minerals. We do not have that. The government has this incredible faith that everybody out there is telling them all they need to know about mineral reserves in the province. The Treasurer has no way of knowing whether that information is accurate. The Treasurer does not know the potential life of any ore body in the province; therefore, how does he know how much money in the form of government services and so forth should be put into any given mining community? He does not know.

We had an example not too long ago just north of Sudbury, near Capreol, where government money -- our money -- went into sewer and water works, roads, schools and other municipal services, and then the major employer, National Steel, walked away. That is poor planning. The Treasurer chooses not to worry about the inventory of mineral resources we have in the province. He simply does not know.

The report also suggested that the nickel institute, working with the private sector, should look into potential new uses of minerals in the province for manufactured goods. The Treasurer chose to ignore that as well. If there is one symbol of how the government has mismanaged resources in the province, it is the whole matter of the refining exemptions under what is now section 104 of the Mining Act. The government has said, "We must refine in Ontario, except we will give exemptions." Is it not remarkable that the exemptions that are given out seem to go on forever? There never seems to be an end to the exemptions that companies such as Falconbridge get.

The Treasurer can argue, I suppose, that the company is in difficulty and, therefore, it would be hard to impose such-and-such a thing on them; but these policies were there when those companies were enjoying their salad days, when they had all sorts of money that they took and spent elsewhere. Even in those days the government decided it was not appropriate to impose any kind of regulations on them that would require them to refine their nickel here.

In view of the hour and the fact the Treasurer obviously, once again, is going to respond in a pathetic and arrogant way, I move the committee rise and report.

The Deputy Chairman: No. Before we --

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The member for Nickel Belt assumes my answer means I am not interested in the points he raises. He has raised them in each estimate debate I have ever had, whether I was Minister of Natural Resources or the Treasurer. They are not part of tonight's debate. The discussions he was just having are directed towards the Minister of Natural Resources. I have a specific item tonight. I am quite willing to debate that specific item. I simply say on my point of order that I feel that should be enforced.

The Deputy Chairman: Is there any further debate on this? Are we ready for the question?

Mr. Stokes: I want to make a few comments.

The Deputy Chairman: All right.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.