Hansard Transcripts 1984-Jun-21 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: My point of order is offered very much in the spirit of the bicentennial, in which clearly we as a province and as a Legislature gather together to honour and note all things historical.

I am reminded it is almost seven years ago that our parliamentary colleague the first minister indicated to this Legislature that he and his government would be prepared to release the report of one Campbell Grant into certain disclosures arising out of the diary of one Harold McNamara. It is almost two years since the first minister last gave us an assurance that the Campbell Grant report would be released.

We on this side of the House are in most matters, I think, reasonable and tolerant men and women. But I would have thought that, if for no other reason than to commemorate this great historical event we know as the bicentennial, the Premier (Mr. Davis) would want to make a personal contribution by laying before this House, before its adjournment, close to the seventh anniversary of his first promise -- keeping in mind, of course, that we are told he is a man who can and will keep the promise -- the report of one Campbell Grant into the matters arising out of the Harold McNamara diary.

I believe the Premier can do it, and I would like him to do it to this Legislature on that account, since it is almost seven years since he first made the promise.

Mr. Speaker: I must point out that was hardly a point of order, and it would have been better addressed in the oral question time.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on another point of order on your ruling. When an honourable minister makes a commitment to the House, it is registered in Hansard, observed by the members and the Speaker. If there is then no response, surely it is within our abilities to raise it as a point to bring it to your attention and, through you, to the people whose promise is as yet unkept.

Mr. Speaker: As a matter of fact, if you had noticed, that is exactly what I let you do. Undoubtedly the Premier has taken note of the comments by the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway).

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order pursuant to standing order 19(d)7. Ever mindful of the reverence with which this government adheres to the rules of sub judice, I would like to raise as a point of order or privilege -- this is one opportunity for you to decide; it is either one -- the comments of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) regarding the decision of Mr. Justice Ewaschuk. Members will recall the decision dealing with the independence of the justices of the peace in Ontario.

The Attorney General said, "I do not agree with" -- he is talking about the ruling -- "at all. The decision contains a large number of serious errors in law and is being appealed immediately." Further, in a response to the judge's comments that the salaries of the justices of the peace are shockingly inadequate, the Attorney General said the view of the judge was "gratuitous, wrong and has nothing to do with this case."

We have been admonished repeatedly by the Attorney General for abusing the rule of sub judice in this House and for asking questions. The Attorney General very recently admonished even members of the press for their comments and coverage of the Grange inquiry. In his comments, the Attorney General abused this standing order. Second, he came very close to being contemptuous of the courts. Referring to the Ouellet decision at the federal level, these comments of the Attorney General are not becoming to the chief law officer for the crown.

Hon. Mr. Norton: What he said has nothing to do with --

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. Roy: You, with the QC --

Mr. Speaker: Order. In my opinion that is hardly a point of order. However --

Mr. Roy: I gave you a choice; it is a point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: It is neither, with all respect.

Mr. Roy: A point of information; a point of honour. You should speak to the Attorney General.

Mr. Speaker: No. You know I cannot do that, but I am sure the Attorney General will take note of what you have said.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of privilege relating to a statement made by the then Minister of Health in 1981 with respect to implementation of integrated homemaker services. The Speaker will no doubt be aware that this program was originally announced in October 1981 and that there has been a promise to implement it every year since October 1981.

The current minister announced there would be an integrated program which was to be phased in. That was announced on April 30, 1984. I am sure the Speaker would join with me and all members of the House in agreeing that it is a point of privilege when there are statements and promises made over a period of four years running that have been left unattended. I wonder if I could ask the Speaker to prevail upon the minister to give his credibility another chance by rising in the House and stating that the homemakers program will be implemented immediately.

2:10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: You are asking me to do something that is beyond my jurisdiction and authority. It can hardly be construed as a point of privilege. Again the minister has undoubtedly taken note of what you have said. I suggest you put the question to him at the appropriate time.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point raised previously, the Minister of Health (Mr. Norton), by way of a sotto voce interjection, said he would be glad to respond, but you have ruled it is not a point of order. Wanting to obey the rules and coming under your direction, we are not going to have the benefit of his response to this matter.

I simply draw to your attention that this is a commitment made by the minister in the House and to the House some years ago. Since he has never said anything about it, we feel our privileges have been injured, at least in that small degree.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate the point you are making, and I am not in disagreement, but i think we do have an order of business and it would be better placed during oral question period.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: On April 30, I asked a question of the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Walker) about Judge Henrikson in the city of Windsor. He has been receiving a salary for three years, yet nothing has ever been done about it. It seems to me somebody over there ought to be able to tell us what is going on.

Mr. Speaker: Once again, I am sure the Provincial Secretary for Justice will take note of your remarks.

Mr. Nixon: We have asked the question.

Mr. Speaker: I know you have, but it is beyond my authority to impose on or force somebody to make a statement if he is not so inclined.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, from time to time you say the government keeps on taking note of these things. We need more than just taking note. We are looking for some answers to these questions and we are not getting them. Can you not admonish the government to do something for this Legislature from time to time?

Mr. Speaker: I must point out to all honourable members, as you all know so well, that I am a servant of all members on all sides of the Legislature. It is not for me to admonish or direct anyone.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: On May 1, the Minister of Health was questioned regarding his government's two-year-old promise to extend the assistive devices program, which currently covers children only up to age 18, to cover the adult disabled in the province as well.

In response to that question, the minister stated he had a number of proposals under consideration and he expected to report to the House on the future of the program before the end of the session, which may well be tomorrow.

I am sure the minister does not wish the House to believe he is flouting his privileges or purposely ignoring the plight of many adults who are confined to their homes or hospital beds because they cannot afford the assistive devices they require. I suggest, therefore, that the Minister of Health take this opportunity to announce the extension of the program.

Mr. Speaker: Again, that is hardly a point of order. I suggest the honourable member put the question directly to the minister at the appropriate time.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of privilege surrounding a decision with respect to soft drink container regulations that came before the former Minister of the Environment in 1983 and the present Minister of the Environment (Mr. Brandt) in 1983 and 1984.

During estimates, when we questioned the current minister, we were given to believe that a decision would be made by the end of December 1983. Then we were told it would be made early in the new year. As a result of a question asked on April 27 in this House, we were advised that there would be a reply and a statement made with respect to the decision very soon.

We know it is before the cabinet. We know the minister has undertaken to advise us very shortly. We also know he is holding up to ransom the plans of a very major industry in this province. I think it is about time that minister fulfilled his obligation made to us in this House and in a committee of this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: Once again, I point out to all honourable members that the points raised up to this time can hardly be construed or accepted as points of privilege or points of order.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: On April 27, I asked the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) when he planned to amend the Vital Statistics Act to permit the surname of either parent or both to be given to a child.

At that time the minister responded by stating, and I quote from Hansard, "this policy is in progress and I expect some steps will be introduced very shortly." Two months have passed since then. Children are still being kept without a name and the minister has not fulfilled his commitment to this House.

Mr. Speaker: Once more, I suggest to the honourable member that a more appropriate time to deal with this would be during oral questions.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of personal privilege related to the Ministry of Natural Resources.

On a number of occasions we in this party have asked the minister to release the report of the committee on forest utilization practices in the forest industry in Ontario. That committee was established in June 1982, and the report has been on the minister's desk since June 1983. The review was a follow-up of a report done by an in-house committee in the Ministry of Natural Resources in 1979 and was never released. Wasteful cutting practices remain a major concern and problem in the regeneration of our dwindling forest resources.

In view of those facts, I think it is only fair and reasonable for us to ask again that the minister table this report now.

Mr. Speaker: Obviously the minister is not in the House and therefore he cannot table the report right now. I suggest the honourable member put his question directly to the minister when he does come into the House.

Mr. Mancini: I see you are much more accommodating today, Mr. Speaker.

On March 22, you may recall we raised the issue of a labour forecast report which had been completed by the Ontario Manpower Commission but which was being suppressed from public release. This report, entitled Labour Market Outlook for Ontario: A Five-Year Projection, was supposed to be produced annually. So far, only one issue has been published, and that was in November 1981. We have been told the report was completed earlier this year but a release policy has not been developed by the Ontario government.

Since this government does not like the way forecasts on skilled labour shortages have been used in the past because they have demonstrated that the colleges and universities are not working in a coherent fashion with the private market and have embarrassed the government, one can only assume that is why it is keeping this information secret.

It has been stated by the Ontario Economic Council, and I quote, "It is important for government to strive to obtain and disseminate accurate forecasts of medium-term labour market development so workers can be guided into training for skills that are expected to be in demand."

In view of the fact that there are 45,000 jobs in the skilled trades area that cannot be filled because of this governments lack of a coherent skills training job program, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to help me in getting the release of this report so we can disseminate it throughout Ontario and help workers in the future.

Mr. Speaker: As all honourable members know, I am here to give assistance to all members. There is no way I can demand the release of a report from any ministry, however. That decision has to be made by the minister involved.

Mr. Kerrio: The only assistance you have been to Remo is helping him out of the House.

Mr. Speaker: No, I think I listened to him very attentively today and with great interest.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you can help me. Although you have not been able to help others, you might be able to help me.

Mr. Rotenberg: Boy, do you need help.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Bradley: Listen to the master of witticisms over there.

On May 17, my colleague the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye) asked the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mr. Dean) why the single disabled were still receiving $300 a month less in financial assistance than the single elderly. This was the last in a series of inquiries about this discrepancy. On April 2, my leader asked the same question and received the same reply: he should wait for the budget. We waited and there was nothing in the budget.

On May 17, the answer was that such matters as pensions are always under review. We are still waiting, and I am going to ask your assistance, Mr. Speaker, because I am sure the provincial secretary does not want such an obvious inequity to continue any longer. I request your assistance in extracting from him an announcement regarding an increase in the level of financial assistance for the single disabled before the end of this session. Can you help me, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I think the best advice and assistance I may give you at this time would be that you ask the minister directly in the next order of business.

Mr. Nixon: We asked twice.

Mr. Speaker: I know, but keep on.

Mr. Nixon: As you know, we are right at the end of the session.

Mr. Speaker: No, I do not. The honourable minister has taken note of what you have said and will act, I am sure.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: This is with respect to a question asked of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) almost a month ago, on May 24, with respect to the promise to introduce legislation that would entail the automatic enforcement of maintenance orders, including garnishment of wages. The Attorney General said at the time that the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch) would be announcing certain specific initiatives, but that has not occurred.

With the session about to end in the next several days, I recognize we may be in some difficulty in having these kinds of matters in place and enforceable for the next several months until the fall session begins. I am sure the Attorney General comprehends the importance of this legislation. Perhaps you, Mr. Speaker, could encourage him to keep his word as it was announced a month ago in order to have this legislation announced and a clear commitment made by this government.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the member for Kitchener has had the undivided attention of the Attorney General, as I have observed, and I am sure he will take very serious note of what you have said.

Mr. Spensieri: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I am sure the Speaker will appreciate how sparingly I have used this route in the past, so what I am about to say must be of some significance. On May 14 the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) indicated to this House that he would be indicating to us when the Thom commission report on rent review would be handed down.

Interjections.

Mr. Spensieri: This is a matter of some strategic importance, if the member will pipe down. It is a matter of great importance to some 25,000 tenant households in my riding, and I therefore ask the Speaker's assistance in prompting the minister into at least giving us an update as to when this report may be expected to be tabled and what the route for public dissemination will be.

Mr. Speaker: The minister has obviously given his undivided attention to your observations.

Mr Nixon: Why do you not just squeeze the information out of him?

Mr. Speaker: Do not ask me to squeeze tire information out of him. I suggest, in all seriousness, that you place the question at the appropriate time directly to the minister.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: On June 7, I questioned the Minister of the Environment (Mr Brandt) on International Minerals and Chemical Corp. and its role in clearing up the waste site at Port Maitland in the town of Dunnville before the plant closes. At that time the minister promised to check with his staff and report back to the House.

As yet, we have had no response to this issue, which could affect the lives of many people in my riding. While the government procrastinates, many of its constituents live in fear of toxic waste and radiation affecting their land and water supply. I am sure the minister is aware of these concerns and will therefore keep his promise and report to the House before the session ends.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that was a question, with all respect, but it was a good point, and I would ask the honourable member to address the minister at the proper time.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: On May 4, 1984, I brought to your attention the fact that I had been trying since January, without success, to obtain an annual report of the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program, including a list of all projects and funding commitments. I am still trying, and still without success.

When Judy Steed of the Globe and Mail asked BILD secretary Blair Tully about this issue he stated there may not be a report this year because "there is so much flak when we do."

Surely there is something drastically wrong when the government refuses to provide to the opposition, the media and the public the most basic information about what it claims to be the cornerstone of its economic strategy simply because it has not received the reception it wanted in the past.

I am sure you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that smacks of a type of information control anathema to a democratic society. I hope you will direct the government members to reconsider their coverup.

Mr. Speaker: As I already have advised all members, it is beyond my jurisdiction and authority to direct people to provide information. I would again suggest that the member place the question directly to the minister at the appropriate time.

ACCIDENT AT FALCONBRIDGE

Mr. Rae: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Without taking away at all from the rights of any members who feel their privileges have been abused, I wonder whether I might ask for the unanimous consent of the House so at least we could hear the statement of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) with respect to the accident that took place in Sudbury yesterday.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is not important to them.

Mr. Rae: Most of us want very much to hear what the minister has to say. I wonder whether it would be possible for us to hear that, and then perhaps we can revert to the points the members want to make.

Mr. Conway: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The first minister, the member for Brampton (Mr. Davis), said in a very loud interjection that the report of the Minister of Labour on the very great tragedy in Sudbury was not of importance to members of the official opposition.

Mindful of the Premier's injunction from the Hawaiian shores of last fall, "Let's not be personal," I rise in my place to demand that the first minister, our parliamentary colleague, retract that outrageous and abusive remark.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, now that the honourable member's interest is focused on the statement from the Minister of Labour, I am delighted. I will withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker: We have a request from the member for York South (Mr. Rae) for unanimous consent to hear the statement of the Minister of Labour. Do we have unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

ACCIDENT AT FALCONBRIDGE

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, with the consent of the House, I provided honourable members with a report on a serious mining accident that had occurred earlier that day at the Falconbridge mine. I now have some further details, some of them encouraging but, I regret to say, some of them tragic, that I would like to share with members, who I am certain are as concerned as I am for the lives and safety of the miners involved.

Yesterday, at 10:12 am., the first of seven rock bursts occurred at the main mine of Falconbridge Ltd., near shaft 5. The burst occurred at about the 4,000-foot level. The epicentre of the burst was close to the hoist room pillar of shaft 9.

At the time the burst took place, there were some 170 miners underground. I regret to report that as of 12 noon today, the body of one miner has been recovered. I am certain that the members join me in extending condolences to the family and friends, including the co-workers, of the deceased miner.

The miner who had been trapped, I am pleased to say, was freed as of 1:07 p.m. and is now in hospital. We are awaiting word of his condition. As yet, two miners remain trapped in the debris.

The remaining miners escaped through the east mine shaft and shaft 5 and were on surface by 4:20 p.m. yesterday. The main mine has been closed and will not reopen until the mine and hoist shaft 9 have been thoroughly inspected.

2:30 p.m.

Since the rock burst occurred, the mine rescue teams at Falconbridge Ltd. have been working around the clock to locate the trapped miners. At the same time, the company's ground control experts, with the advice of the chief mining engineer of the ministry's mining health and safety branch, who is a ground control engineer himself, have been in the mine to assess the stability of the remaining ground support structures.

Until the remaining two miners have been found, and we pray they will be alive, the attention of the employer, the union and my officials will be focused on the rescue mission so that those involved are not trapped themselves. Once the present crisis is over, my officials will commence their investigation into the cause of this accident.

Honourable members may recall there have been two major reports made by commissions into the health and safety of workers in mines within the last eight years. The first, the Report of the Royal Commission on the Health and Safety of Workers in Mines, chaired by Dr. James Ham, was presented in 1976 and was actually the model for the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The second, the Report of the Joint Federal-Provincial Inquiry Commission into Safety in Mines and Mining Plants in Ontario, headed by Kevin Burkett, was issued in 1981.

My officials have worked with employers, unions and appropriate organizations to review and implement the commission's recommendations. My predecessor, the member for York East (Mr. Elgie), and I, along with my senior ministry officials, have met with senior representatives of labour and management on a periodic basis to receive status reports on the implementation of the Burkett commission's recommendations. The report contained 83 important recommendations, the vast majority of which have been implemented.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, as the Labour critic for the Ontario Liberal Party, I want to offer our party's condolences to the family that has lost a loved one in this very tragic and unfortunate accident. We agree with the Steelworkers union president that a full provincial inquiry must be held and that labour and management must be included in that inquiry.

We pray and hope for the safety of the other two miners who are missing at the present time. I am sure all members of the House feel considerably grieved by what has happened, and we certainly hope for the best as far as the outcome is concerned.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the minister's remarks. The whole battle for mine safety has been ongoing. I must say there has been a tremendous improvement over the last number of years, since the time of the Ham commission. We have some way to go yet with what are probably the most unsafe working conditions possible.

For example, I am not sure how one can ever be alerted to the type of accident that occurred yesterday. It indicates, however, that there is still room. I think this minister and those of us over here who are going to meet with him later in the year will continue to try to make the occupational work place as safe as is humanly possible.

Like the minister and the member who spoke before me. we offer our condolences to the families of the miner whose body has been recovered and the other miner who has been taken to hospital. We hope those who are still to be found will be safe and sound.

I spoke to the union before I came into the House. I might indicate that there have been two more cracks underground while the men have been working. The bursts have continued. I think the men who are working there are in some danger because of two further blasts earlier this morning. Even as they are working now their own lives are in danger, but they are down there. That is the quality of the men I and my colleague the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) happen to have the pleasure of representing.

[Later]

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I can have consent to bring a rather tragic update.

Mr. Speaker: Can we turn the clock off? Go ahead.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am very dejected to advise that the rescued miner who was brought out at 1:07 today died at 2:30 this afternoon in the hospital in Sudbury.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I have a continuation of the point of privilege I had begun before we gave unanimous consent to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) to address this august body on the obviously critical situation at the Falconbridge mine.

My point surrounds the issue of a health study that was done on the Pauzé landfill site in Tiny township, which was the subject of a question on April 30 this year to the Minister of Health (Mr. Norton). He advised us at the time that he would speak with the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Brandt), if he could catch up with him, and would then provide us with details of the results of that report so we could alleviate the fears and the difficulties under which the people of Tiny township have been living for several months as a result of the outflow of toxics from that waste site.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you once again use your good offices to provide the extra push that the Minister of Health needs to catch up with the Minister of the Environment so they can at least have a tête-à-tête to get the results of this report in front of the public, as they have promised us as representatives of the province.

Mr. Speaker: Again the only thing I can say is that the minister will take note of your remarks, or you may raise this question directly with the minister during oral questions.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: This relates to a question asked last December 13 of the Minister of the Environment concerning the federal-provincial task force commissioned to study ways to clean the English-Wabigoon river system. I know the Speaker is aware that this issue has been going on for 14 years.

The minister gave us some cause for hope in December. He said that as soon as the study was available he would be pleased to release it. Our information is that the study was complete and available last May. Therefore, I would ask the Speaker if he would see to it that the minister lives up to the promise he made in December.

Mr. Speaker: Flattering as all the attention directed in the requests for the Speaker to do things may be, I point out to you again that it is beyond my authority and jurisdiction to do so. However, I can again say that you may raise this directly with the minister at the appropriate time, or that the minister has taken note of what you have said.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. My point is in reference to standing order 81 with respect to written questions. It concerns a question I tabled with the government on May 29, 1984, which question seemed to me to be fairly clear-cut. It deals with the Women in Rural Life -- the Changing Scene conference that is being held today. The question was what it was costing to bring Adrienne Clarkson over from France so she could articulate for the rural women of Ontario the kind of expertise she supposedly has in this field.

The question was fairly direct. Two weeks went by and I did not receive a response. I tabled notice again with the House leader responsible, and I still have not even received an interim answer on what appears to be a fairly straightforward question.

Is the government waiting until the House is over so it can muzzle the kind of information that includes the cost of transportation of a representative from Paris so she can come to talk to rural women in Ontario about the status of agriculture in Ontario? Are we being muzzled? I think you should find out, because we have not had an answer to a question that was tabled last month.

Mr. Speaker: I point out again with great respect that I know very clearly what the standing orders say, but they do not give authority or jurisdiction to the Speaker to demand an answer from anybody.

Ms. Copps: It says 14 days, at least an interim answer.

Mr. Speaker: I know what it says; I just read it. But it is beyond my authority to demand it.

Ms. Copps: Who enforces the standing orders?

Mr. Speaker: You know very well who enforces the standing orders. But I cannot force anybody --

Ms. Copps: This is in the standing orders. I am supposed to have an answer within 14 days.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Ms. Copps: I do not even have an interim answer. Who enforces the standing orders'?

Mr. Speaker: I do, of course.

Ms. Copps: It is in the standing orders. I am supposed to get a response within 14 days. I am still waiting and I have already served notice after the 14-day period. This is a legitimate point of order.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Certainly. I am not saying it is not. I am just saying the minister is the one who has to provide that answer.

Ms. Copps: What recourse is there to enforce the standing orders?

Mr. Speaker: Exactly what you have done. You have made the point very well.

Ms. Copps: Is there not moral suasion?

Mr. Speaker: Sure.

Ms. Copps: Your moral suasion did not work last week, so perhaps you could up the ante a bit.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

WINTARIO CAPITAL GRANTS PROGRAM

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, this may involve the Premier (Mr. Davis). I notice him sitting in the background. I wonder if I could call this to his attention. I do not know if it is a point of privilege or a matter of correcting the record from yesterday. I do not know whether it deals with the Premier or the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Baetz).

Yesterday there was a discussion about, and information was given concerning, the premature release of information on Wintario capital grants for political purposes. The record should be corrected to show that the information given to the mayor of Trenton by a personal phone call was not given on the day of the announcement. I made a mistake on that. It was given the evening before by a person the mayor referred to only as Buttermilk Bill. We would like to know if the Premier is this mysterious Buttermilk Bill who made the call to the mayor. If not, who is Buttermilk Bill?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think --

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I really do not like to get involved in the theatrics, but there is no point of order. I do not know why you invite the Premier to answer to something that is not a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Did I say it was a point of order'? The member for Quinte (Mr. O'Neil), as I clearly heard, said he was standing up to correct the record. During the course of that --

Mr. McClellan: What does he have to do with it?

Mr. Martel: What does he have to do with it?

Mr. Speaker: He made a remark addressed specifically to one of the honourable members.

Mr. Martel: That is nonsense.

Mr. Speaker: He did.

Mr. Martel: I am aware of what he did. You do not invite the Premier to respond. It is not even a point of order and you are inviting him to respond.

Mr. Speaker: He did not rise on a point of order.

Mr. Martel: Why are you asking the Premier to respond?

Mr. Speaker: I did not invite him. The member for Quinte invited him.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. McClellan: So we do not have questions; we have invitations to the Premier. That is good.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I say to the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) that I stood in my place after the member for Quinte and all the Speaker did was say "Mr. Premier." He said that after I was on my feet.

Mr. McClellan: You went like that to the Speaker and he ruled in your favour. That is what happened. You wagged your finger at the Speaker and he let you rise.

Mr. Bradley: We want to be fair.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) always wants to be fair. The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) needs to hold his hand over the member's head; he should do it more regularly.

I must comment that I think the point raised by the member for Quinte is not consistent with the strategy I know the Liberal caucus has been developing over the morning, which leaked to us a while ago. It probably is more relevant and contemporary than some others.

I can understand the concern of the member for Quinte. There is a little history to this, and I will tell him all I know about it. I went to Trenton and shared an evening with the member. He was very kind to the Premier of this province in his observations, and I like to think I was equally generous in my remarks. It was a very nonpartisan, nonpolitical event.

As is my custom during these visits, I did consult with certain people who have positions of responsibility in the communities. I was also in Belleville and met with the chief magistrate of the member's home community. We shared certain interests and certain thoughts. He brought to my attention his great interest in an application involving an ice surface or arena. I told him I was not familiar with all the details, but said I would certainly pursue it.

I assumed the community had raised the funding, which I gather is true. The service clubs, or whoever, had raised their part of the funding. I did comment on the validity of this proposal. As a result, I did communicate the interest in this project I had received from the mayor, whose virtues the member extols publicly on so many occasions.

I may have seen the mayor again since that date in Picton some weeks ago. I am not sure whether he was there. I know why the member is so concerned and so interested and why he is a little nervous about the mayor of Trenton receiving some degree of credit in this issue. I understand it all and I know his nervousness, but I have to tell him I have not talked to the mayor of Trenton in the last two weeks and he received no communication from me.

While I am a great supporter of dairy products -- I drink more milk than the leader of the Liberal Party and less of the other stuff than he does -- and I like apple juice, strawberries, etc. -- l confess I do not drink buttermilk.

Mr. Peterson: I prefer not to think of the Premier as Buttermilk Bill anyway; I prefer to see him as Baseball Bill.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, you can see the frustration of the members of the opposition in this House. We believe you have a duty to discharge the standing orders of this House. There have been many violations pointed out to you. We are saying you have to assume your responsibility. We have asked questions orally, in written form and in a variety of forms; yet this government continues to be extremely secretive. It is obsessed with secrecy, as evidenced in its last so-called freedom of information bill.

It seems to me, with the advice of your advisers at the table here, you must seriously consider your responsibility in making sure this government lives up to its promises, in making sure --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Why do you not do your job?

Mr. Peterson: What does the Premier mean? We are doing our job. Why does he not honour some simple promises he made in this House?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peterson: Your determination, sir, is to find out when an elected political party becomes an elected dictatorship. That is what is happening in this government. The extreme arrogance of this government is not serving the process well in Ontario. I would like you to consider what you have heard today and come back to the House as soon as possible with the remedies you have available to you. Obviously, they are not going to do anything.

2:50 p.m.

MEMBERS' EXPENDITURES

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of clarification arising out of the exchanges on Tuesday about the publishing of expenses. I want to refer you to the headline in the Ottawa Citizen today that says, "Boudria Heads Annual MPP Expenses List." It goes through the various expenses but in the body of the story it says. "In fact, Davis' expenses in Tuesday's documents amounted to $44,823, half of Boudria's."

Mr. Speaker, you can see the distortion that was presented by those documents that were tabled. You are mindful now of the points brought forward to you by my colleagues on this side of the House. You do have a remedy. I am asking you to clarify the situation so that the people who were misinformed, shall I say, because of headlines of this type will clearly understand that this is not factually the case, that the Premier's expenses are many times those of any other member in this House.

I am not saying they should not be, but what I am saying is he has an obligation to report that fairly. When we do not account for or even report private plane trips to private baseball games and private Ontario Provincial Police boats and that kind of thing, when this kind of discrimination is promoted against a private member, then I think you have personally, through the chair, sir, an obligation to correct the record. I am asking you to do that.

Mr. Speaker: I just want to assure the Leader of the Opposition and indeed all honourable members in this House that I shall enforce the standing orders as they are written and as I am directed by various members from time to time. I shall be very happy to take the matter under advisement and to take the advice of my advisers and others.

Without making any snap judgement on it, I would like all parties to consider that the latter part of your point of clarification may, and I say may, better be considered by the Board of Internal Economy.

Mr. Martel: I tried that. They would not do it. You fellows would not go along with it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is the board that makes the decisions, not the Speaker. I will be very happy to do that.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege. You will know it is my privileges as an MPP that are affected in this case.

I want to draw to your attention, sir, that in the same article, it does say -- in smaller print of course -- "Boudria's translation costs were the highest of any MPP." I do not apologize for representing a riding that has 80 per cent francophones, the largest number of unilingual francophones in Ontario. It says further that the cost of that was $8,000 and long-distance charges were $10,612, because this government does not provide my constituency with a tie line.

I draw your attention, sir, to standing order 19(a) of this Legislature, which says I have a right to address this Legislature and to do my work here in either French or English. That privilege is not one that I designed but is one this Legislature gave to me as a member. Notwithstanding the fact that I can use both languages here, I can be heard in only one and I accept that. What I fail to accept is that I am earmarked as being $8,000 more expensive than anyone else here because I use those privileges that have been afforded to me by this Legislature.

If the day ever came where I spoke only French in this House and had all 124 members do the translating, this Legislature would not save any money by my doing so. I think I have been co-operative in that regard, but it is becoming increasingly difficult for me to accept this as a representative of a francophone community. Those kinds of headlines are very difficult for me. I ask you, sir, to take under advisement that these rules must be changed.

If other members use the legislative library, they are not charged for using it. It does not say member X has used the library. If other members use another facility around this place, or a public address system to address their constituents on the front steps, they are not tagged so much for having used that service.

Mr. Speaker, I ask of you, why do I have to be earmarked, tagged, for serving francophones?

Je suis d'avis, M. le Président, qu'il est grandement temps que cette Assemblée change cette pratique qui, à mon avis, est totalement discriminatoire envers non seulement moi-même, mais tous les francophones de notre province.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to impress on the honourable member and others that nobody -- I want to emphasize that -- is denied his rights.

Ms. Copps: He is being surcharged.

Mr. Speaker: I know what the problem is, and we are taking that under advisement.

Mr. Martel: Since when?

Mr. Speaker: Since when what?

Mr. Martel: Since when are you taking it under advisement? They have turned it down at the board every time I have gone up there.

Mr. Speaker: With all respect, I am the chairman only.

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: Just before we proceed with the regular business of the House --

Mr. Roy: I thought we were doing it.

Mr. Speaker: Not yet.

I am pleased to draw honourable members' attention to a distinguished group of parliamentarians from Saskatchewan who are in the Speaker's gallery and who are here as guests of the Ontario branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association: Mr. Grant Schmidt, MLA for the riding of Melville, Saskatchewan; Mrs. Evelyn Bacon, MLA for the riding of Saskatoon Nutana; and Mr. Lloyd Muller, MLA for the riding of Shellbrook-Torch River.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CHAIRMAN OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO COUNCIL

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier.

At present there is a great deal of jockeying going on downtown to determine who the next chairman of Metropolitan Toronto will be. Given that one of the major impediments to reform with respect to the appointment of that chairman is now gone, or has indicated he is about to retire; and given that two ministers have now publicly indicated different positions in the last 24 hours -- the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells), I gather, wants no change: the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) is prepared to look at some change and has indicated his personal opinion that there should be some democratic accountability for the Metro chairman -- what is the Premier's position?

Is he prepared now, given this new opportunity, to reassess the position of his government to make sure there is democratic accountability at Metro council?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I was not here yesterday because I was --

Mr. McClellan: Why do you not just auction it off?

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

Mr. Martel: If you offer the chairmanship you might be able to deliver.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know the chairmanship you want.

I understand this question was raised yesterday by -- did the Leader of the Opposition raise it yesterday?

Mr. Martel: No, we did.

Hon. Mr. Davis: So you are following them with your question today. They were ahead of you again, in other words.

Mr. Nixon: They must be in bad shape if you are trying to bump them up again.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, but I know what kind of shape you are in.

3 p.m.

I think the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs answered it yesterday. Some reference has been made to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I gather from the press he indicated that if we were to be approached by Metro, then one might review the situation. I am not nearly as familiar with the situation downtown, as the Leader of the Opposition calls it, as he may be; I do not pick up all the rumours and get involved in all the discussions going on. But quite obviously, if Mr. Godfrey's resignation is to take effect, say, some time in September, there will not be any altered system for the next chairman of Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. Peterson: The Premier is the one who was aware of the resignation before it was public. He should not kid me about his little network down there.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: We now have an opportunity to reassess this situation. Given the report and recommendation of the Premier's predecessor who looked closely at the situation, may I ask him now to reassess the position of his government? Obviously, it requires a change in legislation here to bring democratic accountability back to Metro council, where we should have it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I must confess I do not totally recall the recommendations, but I will do my best. I think the report did recommend the Metro-wide election of the chairman. I am not sure whether the report went on to say that in the case of the resignation of a chairman in mid-term, whatever that may be, there would be another Metro-wide election to replace the chairman. The honourable member may read that into the report or it may be there as a specific recommendation, but I do not recall it. I could be totally wrong.

I think we are not just facing the question of the principle of whether the Metro chairman should be elected. The leader of the Liberal Party is saying that if there happened to be a resignation, even if that were the process, there would be another Metro-wide election at mid-term for that one position. I assume that is the logic of his argument.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing was responding to comments yesterday, he indicated the government would be prepared to look at and consider a simple requirement that the person who is chosen to be chairman of Metropolitan Toronto at least be required to be a member of the council and run as a member of that council to continue to hold that office.

Does the Premier not think it is democratic and fair that the individual who holds a considerable amount of power and political responsibility in Ontario should have to face the voters of Metro Toronto? Mr. Godfrey did not face the voters for practically a decade. Does the Premier think that is right? Does he think that is fair? What is he going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, we are faced with a situation where the chairman of Metro council has indicated he intends to resign. It is not really in mid-term; it is a little closer to two thirds of the term. The honourable member is asking me whether the government supports the principle and the concept of an elected chairman of Metro through the route of being elected to Metro council. The minister has said he personally would be prepared to review or discuss that. I think that is what the press statement contained.

We have debated this in the House before. I know the New Democratic Party has advocated a certain position. We as a government have taken a different position. It is a fair area for disagreement. I only point out to the member that on balance, the system has worked relatively well, whether one agrees with it or not. It has been applied in other regional areas of Ontario, not just here in Metropolitan Toronto.

Ms. Copps: It is not working in Hamilton, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is taking a different position there.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Never mind the interjections, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member for Hamilton Centre should not talk to us about different positions.

Ms. Copps: The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing would not allow elections in Hamilton.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Premier may be aware that Frank Bean, the chairman of the regional municipality of Peel, stated last January, "Unless the province is willing to make changes, nothing is going to happen." He added that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing was adamant that he did not want to make a change in the system. "He has always resisted it," Mr. Bean said.

On Wednesday morning, in committee discussing the estimates, the Premier may be aware that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing indicated his personal position was that the chairman of Metro council should be elected. The minister made the analogy between the chairman and a minister of the crown. In other words, when a member is appointed to cabinet, he still retains a position in his constituency.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Epp: I am just getting to it.

If the minister is in favour of such a change, why is the government opposed to having an elected and accountable chairman? Second, is the Premier going to make such a change, or is he going to continue sitting on the fence in this matter and run the risk of getting a serious case of haemorrhoids?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will not comment at great length on the very sensitive, helpful and constructive observation in the latter part of the honourable member's question, which must be an issue that bothers him far more than it bothers me. I am only guessing at that; I do not mean to be personal, but I see the member is laughing and I assume he has a problem. Is it Preparation-H he should be using? Is that his problem? I do not know. I would say to the honourable member --

Mr. J. A. Reed: This debate is getting pretty old.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He is worried about my health and I am worried about his. I would say to the honourable member --

Mr. Rae: Is this what the privy council is all about?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the honourable member want an answer?

Mr. Epp: Yes, but I don't want the Premier to have a health problem.

ACID RAIN

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. It relates to acid rain, which is no longer just an environmental problem; the evidence is mounting that it is a health problem as well.

The minister will no doubt be aware that this morning the US Office of Technology Assessment issued a report called Acid Rain and Transported Air Pollutants, suggesting that up to 50,000 people in North America could die prematurely as a result of inhaled airborne pollutants. The minister is aware that could translate, on the basis of their figures, to 1,310 people in Ontario dying prematurely because of acid ruin.

Given the mounting evidence that it is a health problem, will the minister, who is the minister responsible for health in this province, undertake studies to determine the real effect of acid rain in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I am not personally aware of the report to which the honourable member refers, other than having seen some reference to it in the press this morning. I think the first thing for me to do would be to have my staff get a copy of that and other relevant research documents that have been produced on the subject and do a review of the existing literature before determining whether it is an appropriate matter for me to pursue with original research in this jurisdiction.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Peterson: Admittedly the evidence is not definitive; but in addition, there is a 1981 report by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development dealing with European countries, which found that an expenditure of $1.2 billion a year was required in Europe to reduce acid gas emissions and could save up to $7 billion a year in health-related costs.

Given the study by Dr. Ronald Lees, the professor at Queen's University, whom the minister probably knows, which found that medical costs attributed to coal-fired Hydro plants could be as much as $8 million a year in 1978 dollars, and given the mounting evidence that we have a major problem with acid gas emissions and acid rain here in this province, I am asking the minister to undertake those studies. Does not he not agree with me that there is enough evidence now that it is affecting individuals' health and that it is our responsibility to know those facts?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Neither I nor the member is in a position to make the determination as to whether the existing scientific evidence would justify that kind of undertaking in this jurisdiction. What I suggested in response to the first question is appropriate in response to the supplementary question. The responsible thing to do would be to have the more expert members of my staff review the existing literature and determine what an appropriate course of action might be.

In conclusion, I would add that in view of the member's endorsement of the report relating to the impact of coal-fired plants, he ought to be singing the praises of Ontario Hydro, since it has gone substantially in the direction of phasing out coal-fired plants in this province in favour of alternative forms of energy production.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, bearing in mind, as the Minister of Health says, that there is a certain hesitation on the part of a former Minister of the Environment to install scrubbers because he was not then convinced there was a great need for them, the fact is there has been an expansion in coal-fired generation as a result of certain accidents which have occurred at other generating stations. When he was Minister of the Environment, on occasion he made certain inquiries with respect to the implementation of scrubbers and the costs.

While the Minister of Health is talking to his colleague the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Brandt) about Pauzé landfill health studies, will he undertake to relay to him his concern and his objective and considered opinion, and request that those scrubbers be installed at Ontario Hydro plants to reduce the acid rain emissions? That will deal with the problem set out in this study in a real and meaningful way.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, this is not a new discussion for me to have with the honour-able member opposite. We have had it over the last few years, if I recall correctly. I had hoped that by this time he would understand the problem a little more fully. Unfortunately, he does not seem to have developed any greater depth of understanding than he had three years ago. I must have failed in my efforts to share information with him here in the House. I will be quite happy to start all over again now, if he wishes. Perhaps I can abbreviate the response and see if I can jog his memory.

Whatever the current experience of Ontario Hydro with respect to coal-fired generation, the member will remember that there was always a projection, aside from the temporary interruptions of other forms of generation at the moment, that there would be an initial increase in the emissions from fossil fuel-fired generation in this province prior to the triggering of the first target for reductions in emissions in the order that was imposed on Ontario Hydro some three years ago.

The targets that were established for 1986, and subsequently for 1989 or 1990, are still the most ambitious targets for the reduction of acid gases of any jurisdiction I know of in North America. The member ought to remember that there may be a temporary aberration in that -- I should not be answering this anyway; it should be the Minister of the Environment.

Mr. Elston: He is very well informed on the subject.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Yes. He is well informed on the subject. I hope the member will once again endorse the policy of this government with respect to Ontario Hydro.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health about the Canada Health Act, which comes in on July 1, and extra billing. The minister will know that on March 23 his colleague the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman), talking about doctors who are extra billing, said, "I know many of those doctors and I know many of the patients, and I say that in the vast majority of cases they are extra billing the better-off in society."

Is the minister aware of the fact sheet that has been put out by the Family Services Association of Metropolitan Toronto? I am sure he knows that 90 per cent of the clients of the FSA earn less than $30,000. Is he aware of the survey of 84 of its clients that this group has conducted? Is he aware that 84 per cent of those extra billed stated that paying the extra money was a problem? Nearly half stated they paid more for medical services than was covered by the Ontario health insurance plan in the last year.

What does the minister intend to do about the continuing problem of extra billing, which hurts the poor more than it affects the rich? It affects the average people in Ontario. It affects practically everyone who needs to have an operation. What does he intend to do to get rid of this absurdity of extra billing at a time when it is against the law of Canada and is something that should be changed?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker. the Canada Health Act does not come into effect on July 1; it has been in effect for some time now. I think the honourable member is mistaken in his statement. He is referring to the fact that if there should be any withholding of transfer payments by the federal government in trust for the provinces, that would trigger on July 1.

With respect to the report done by the Family Services Association of Metropolitan Toronto to which the member referred, I am not aware of it. I have not seen it. I would be quite happy to have a look at it and would then perhaps be in a better position to comment on or discuss it with the member. I would say that if the information as he quotes it is accurate, then that information is not generally consistent with the experience that seems to be indicated across Ontario.

Mr. Rae: We have never had a clear answer from the minister. Is it the policy of the government that after July 1 it will continue to allow physicians to extra bill? What in heaven's name is the logic of punishing the average people of this province, such as pensioners and many other people who are living below the poverty line?

What is the good sense of punishing those people when there clearly is a national consensus among all three political parties across Canada that extra billing is not justified or warranted and is something the government should put an end to? Why does the government continue to allow that practice when it is so clearly against the interests of everyone in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I recognize the member is free to engage in some rhetorical licence in this discussion, but before he alleges that the present system in Ontario is or has been punitive, before jumping to these kinds of unjustified conclusions, he ought to look at the actual experience and reflect upon that.

The thrust of his question was directed towards a matter of government policy. As he is aware, July 1 is not particularly significant in either the short term or the longer term with respect to the Canada Health Act. It is only a commencement point for the collection of information and, if necessary, the withholding by the federal government of the funds from the province, whether temporarily or otherwise.

We are continuing to explore all the ramifications of a variety of options we have under consideration. I expect that in the very near future, as soon as the dust settles a little there and we know who will be in what role, I shall be engaging in some further discussions with the representatives of the federal government to discuss some of its further interpretations of the implementation of the Canada Health Act. I shall also be consulting with other affected parties before any final decisions are made.

3:20 p.m.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I understood the minister to say he was not aware of the survey. Due to his illness when he first got his portfolio, he had a bit of holiday from some of the opposition members --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Ms. Copps: -- but it is clear the minister, to whose office this survey was hand delivered more than two weeks ago, should be aware of what the Family Services Association of Metropolitan Toronto has found. If he stands here in the House and says this does not concur with the facts he is getting across the province, it is clearly because he is not getting the facts.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Ms. Copps: Two weeks ago, we raised the issue of Archway Counselling and Crisis Centre. This minister has never even heard of Archway. Today, we raise the issue of extra billing, and this minister has not even heard of the Family Services Association of Metropolitan Toronto survey.

Mr. Speaker: Now for the question.

Ms. Copps: What is happening within his ministry? Why is he not on top of the issues? Why does he not take the suggestion we made in estimates: that he should conduct a survey of people who are billed by the Ontario health insurance plan across the province to find out what kind of economic impact this is having on low-income families?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, it is always a matter of consternation for me when I see the honourable member getting so exercised by my behaviour in the conduct of my responsibilities within the ministry. I want to assure her I am reasonably in control of things at the moment. I have not seen the survey that has her so upset. The reason may well be that I happen to receive something in the neighbourhood of 50,000 to 60,000 pieces of correspondence each year directed to me personally.

I do not get a chance to be at the door of my office to have correspondence put in my hand directly, even if it is hand delivered to my office, although I must say I do see during the course of the year essentially all the correspondence. I read it and I also read the responses I send out.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Gong. Order.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I have not seen that survey but I will get a copy of it.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the minister. Final supplementary.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate one more statistic from this survey that the family services bureau took: 84 per cent of those who were extra-billed said they had great difficulty in paying the bill.

Because of the lack of statistical information the ministry has, having done no survey, it cannot prove its ease that people are not suffering from extra billing. Now that we have this survey, what is the minister prepared to do to return universal and equal accessibility to the health care system? We have gone through an entire spring session without one word in the form of a statement about what this government's response is to the Canada Health Act, other than to complain.

What is the minister's response to the Canada Health Act? What is he going to do to see that universal accessibility is returned as the system of this province, as agreed to by all three political parties in the federal House of Commons? When is he going to end extra billing in this province?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member seems to have focused upon only one of a number of options, and it is an option with many variations that could be explored.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Norton: My colleagues are not being very helpful to me at the moment, but I shall try to suffer through them.

There is really no evidence to support the conclusion that the member has come to with respect to anything impairing the accessibility to health care in this province.

Furthermore, he is focusing upon an aspect of the system that has been part of it since its inception in this province and in most provinces in this country. The survey on which he is placing so much reliance may or may not be of significance. For example, does the member know how those questions were formulated or how that information was collected, and if it has any scientific validity? Those are important questions to be asked about any survey.

I am willing to look at that document and to come to some assessment, provided the people who have produced it can satisfy me about the way the information was collected. If it was collected in a scientifically valid way, then I will treat it appropriately.

Mr. Rae: I do not feel any pain at all, Mr. Speaker. You can take the tooth out now.

INTEREST RATES

Mr. Rae: My next question is to the Treasurer. I would like to ask him a question concerning interest rates and what is happening with housing starts.

The Treasurer will know that in the speech from the throne the government came up with this rosy picture. It said that within Ontario healthy growth in real incomes along with an improved mortgage market should result in a good increase in housing starts in 1984.

The Treasurer will know that since that rosy statement was made, and even as it was being spoken by the Lieutenant Governor, housing starts were stopping in their tracks. The Treasurer will be aware that real interest rates and certainly real mortgage rates are practically at their historic peak, at seven and three quarter per cent in June, 1984, as compared to eight and three quarters which is what they were in those crazy months around September 1981.

Does the Treasurer recognize that we are in an urgent situation concerning housing starts and interest rates? What does he intend to do this summer to see that housing starts are up, housing opportunities are up, and to see that people can afford to buy the housing that is being built?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I disagree with the analysis of the housing starts made by the member. In fact, not more than a week or 10 days ago I got a very good and encouraging letter from the housing groups that had been into see me in the pre-budget meetings.

In those letters, I think both the groups indicated they had every confidence that we would see about 54,000 to 58,000 housing starts this year, as projected in the budget and indeed projected as long ago as the fall economic statement. Nothing has occurred to date which indicates Ontario will not see that number of housing starts.

Mr. Rae: Is the Treasurer denying that a year ago, between January and May, there were 21,000 starts in Ontario? This year, between January and May, there have been 15,000 starts. This is a decline of 29 per cent. In Toronto, the decline has been near 40 per cent. St. Catharines and Niagara are down more than 40 per cent. Is the Treasurer denying this?

Is the Treasurer denying the universal consensus in the Financial Post and the Financial Times, that in every single analysis which is being made today of what is happening in the interest rate market real mortgage rates are very high? This is having a seriously dampening effect on housing starts and on the ability of the average Ontarian to buy a house. Is he denying these facts?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am denying that housing starts will fail to hit the target we estimated of about 58,000 starts this year. Interest rates are high, but they are not so unusually erratic and out of an expected range that they are causing the kind of consumer reaction and home-buyer reaction the member fears.

I think if we saw another interest rate hike in the next couple of months, it would be quite serious. There is no indication this is going to happen. I can only repeat what I have said. The housing industry reports to us that it still expects to get in the range of 54,000 to 58,000 housing starts this year.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer must be the only one in the province who holds the position he has just put. Mortgage loans by banks and other mortgage institutions are down. People cannot or will not buy mortgages or take out mortgages. The whole market is coming to a slowdown. The budget was based on a very optimistic view of what the interest rates were going to be.

What is the Treasurer going to do if his rosy projections do not happen as he projected in his budget? What contingency plans or supplementary budgets is he going to bring in, early in the fall, in case this situation increases? Obviously, the prime rate has been going up the last few weeks and the trend seems likely to continue.

3:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I was kind of interested to see the prediction of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development for Canada for 1984. It was interesting that the OECD, which could hardly be called an erratic or overly optimistic organization, predicted that total real economic growth for 1984 should be 4.5 per cent in Canada. Everyone, even the member opposite, would acknowledge that at this point Ontario is leading --

Mr. T. P. Reid: Sure, if interest rates stay reasonable.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You might want to argue with the OECD.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Do you not read the business section of the newspaper?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: This is in the business section in today's Toronto Star.

Mr. T. P. Reid: What did it say on the front page? It said mortgage demand had dried up.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please. Now for the answer.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The OECD is predicting that Canada's growth for 1984 will be 4.5 per cent; this is an up-to-date prediction. If Canada is to get 4.5 per cent, then obviously Ontario would have to perform at least at 4.7 per cent if not higher, since Ontario is far and away leading the rest of the country in economic growth.

This is a fairly good read on what is happening in Canada today and it indicates that observers as objective as the OECD predict that our growth will be at the very least at the level predicted in our budget, notwithstanding the interest rate concerns that we all share.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I understand that today the bank rate has gone up from 11.84 per cent to 11.98 per cent. I do not know why the Treasurer continues to pretend that interest rates are not going back up and that we are not heading into a major renewal of the slump in the housing industry.

I want to ask specifically about the rental accommodation housing market. Surely the Treasurer is aware, because private industry has been very candid over the course of the last two years, that the private rental accommodation development industry is simply refusing to build affordable housing. They are saying quite clearly they will not build anything except luxury accommodation under current market conditions and under current government policy. There is no such thing as affordable rental accommodation being built anywhere in this province.

How much longer is he simply going to ignore this reality and remain in a position where he has no rental housing supply programs? He has turned the Ontario Housing Corp. into a holding company. When is he going to initiate a separate provincial rental accommodation supply program, perhaps using the Ontario Mortgage Corp. to provide low-interest loans to nonprofit housing developers? Nonprofit apartment developers are in existence all across this province who are simply waiting for government leadership to build housing, put construction workers back to work and take people off the OHC waiting list.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. I did not say interest rates had not been rising; what I did say was that with the 14-basis-point rise today interest rates were still within a range that I believe and have believed should not inhibit activity in Canada as much as many people are saying it has or could. I remain convinced, fortified by the Conference Board of Canada and the OECD -- hardly partisan observers of the Ontario scene -- that we still will see the kind of economic activity we predicted in our budget.

Mr. McClellan: Deal with rental accommodation.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: With regard to rental housing and the other matters the honourable member raised, as he knows, those are questions he should raise and has raised with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett).

CROP INSURANCE

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The minister may be aware that Essex county tomato farmers and other tomato farmers across Ontario import a good number of plants from Georgia. These plants are then stored in cold storage or in barns for planting at the appropriate time. Due to very poor weather this planting season, many farmers in Essex county were unable to get their crops in the field. In a number of cases, the tomato plants were lost. Many farmers lost 150,000 to 300,000 plants and more.

Can the minister explain to the House why he has allowed the Crop Insurance Commission of Ontario to put in place a policy that would deny farmers insurance coverage for this type of loss?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the crop insurance for plants stored in barns was terminated in 1980 or 1981. In talking with staff about this, apparently the reason was some very bad experiences with this particular plant. Essentially, I am told the problem is the quality of the plants coming from Georgia.

Apparently, until the time the plan was terminated, crop insurance would cover about a third of the value, the growers would cover a third of the value and the firms with whom the acreage was contracted would pay a third of the value. The firms are still carrying their third and the growers are carrying two thirds, but it was the decision of the Crop Insurance Commission of Ontario, which is made up entirely of farmers, to terminate the plan.

I should point out that through the commission we have approved payments for the replanting of about 50 million or 60 million plants that were in the field, due to a late frost, so the area of tomato plants has not been completely dropped; it is just that one area where, over a number of years the plan was in place, there were so many bad experiences related to the quality of the plants coming into the country that it was terminated.

Mr. Mancini: The minister has said the Crop Insurance Commission of Ontario did give coverage for these types of losses from the years 1972 to 1980. This was covered under the premiums farmers pay for replanting. The minister has already acknowledged that there has been considerable replanting done.

In view of the tremendous difficulties that Ontario farmers have had over the past three or four years and in view of the very little aid they receive from this government, would the minister give consideration to instructing the commission to accept claims for tomato plants lost? Would he do this on a one-time basis for this spring, and then have the commission review the overall general policy this winter when things are not in such a crisis-type situation?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am not going to repeat the debate of a few days ago about what this government has done for the agriculture industry. It is ironic, because the member's area, as much as or more than any, has benefited from the government's programs, particularly through increased acreage in field tomatoes for plants like the Heinz plant in Leamington, the Primo plant at Cottam and so on.

Having said that, the member is well aware that the crop insurance program is a federal-provincial program. The premiums for the approved crop insurance plans are paid half by the growers who voluntarily join and half by the federal government. The provincial government pays the administrative cost. I have no authority whatsoever to order the Crop Insurance Commission of Ontario to pay claims on a plan which does not exist, which has been gone for four years and which does not have the agreement of the other party to the plan, the federal government.

3:40 p.m.

WAITING PLACEMENT FEE

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Health (Mr. Norton) I will ask this question of the provincial Treasurer, if I could have his attention.

I would like to ask if he is aware that, as one of the methods of raising money for hospitals in the province, a new fee has been put in place called a waiting placement fee, which works out to $486.49 a month for patients who are inappropriately placed in active treatment beds while they are waiting for admission to nursing home beds, homes for the aged beds, rest home beds or chronic care beds.

I would like to ask the minister whether the government condones this new user fee and whether he is aware that the major motivation for the hospitals in introducing this fee is the business-oriented new development program which he introduced when he was Minister of Health?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, I am not aware of it. The member would have to ask the Minister of Health for his comments on that mechanism.

Mr. Cooke: I do not know where the Minister of Health is. He seems to leave question period every day. We thought we would get a shorter answer from the Treasurer anyway. I do not know if that is in line with his stature.

When the Treasurer is talking to the Minister of Health about this issue, would he bring to the attention of the minister that partly because of the lack of community alternatives and the lack of nursing homes beds and homes for the aged beds in this province, hospitals are putting these kinds of penalties on patients.

Does the minister not realize that this is going to affect people of low and medium income most? There is no new policy for this major new user fee, according to Ministry of Health staff, even though Hotel Dieu of St. Joseph Hospital in Windsor will be starting this new fee on July 1? In addition, Kitchener-Waterloo Hospital has been charging this fee since April 1 and Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital in Burlington has been charging this fee for three years, even when he was Minister of Health.

According to the Ontario Hospital Association, many hospitals throughout the province are either considering this new fee or are using this new fee now. Is it not time he talked to his colleague and set a policy in this province to stop this new major user fee in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have nothing to add to my previous answer.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. On June 7 I asked the minister about radiation at the lagoons of International Minerals and Chemical Corp. in Dunnville. Since then quite a bit of information has come from the ministry through the press.

There are between 20 and 45 picocuries of radium in the gypsum lagoon behind the IMC plant. In addition to the 100 acres of radioactive waste I drew to the minister's attention on June 7, there are 82 more acres of the same kind of buried waste from IMC just 50 feet from the banks of the Grand River. There are radioactive hot spots in the plant itself.

Why did the ministry not inform the public about this problem sooner? Will the minister table all the reports and studies conducted by his ministry or others on the radiation problem at the plant?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that question has been raised by the member because in the rather futile exercise we went through earlier, which wasted such a great deal of time, there was some comment with respect to this question not being answered, so I am pleased to have the opportunity to answer it now.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: In detail.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: In some detail. The whole question of low-level radioactive waste, as my honourable colleague should know, is a federal responsibility. We are working with the federal authorities on the question of appropriate closeout of that site.

I can assure the member development will not be allowed on the site where there are any problems with respect to radon or any difficulties with respect to low-level radioactivity of any type. The front line of defence in connection with this whole environmental question is the federal government. Knowing the member's party affiliations, I think he should be talking to his colleagues in Ottawa about this question rather than attempting, as he so frequently does, to shift the problem on to the province.

Let me say one other thing in connection with this issue, and I will try to be brief. Some supposedly scientific reports from that very area were released in the newspaper indicating certain health-related problems. I have to suggest there must have been some quasi-research people taking these surveys. I realize there are a lot of quasis over there.

The reality is that the people who were working for the official opposition were not in a position to bring out information that was scientifically valid. All they have done by the release of such an incorrect and inappropriate report is to cause undue concern in a municipality that certainly does not have to be subjected to that kind of threat to the environment when it does not exist there at present.

Mr. G. I. Miller: The minister has a responsibility and a right to inform the people of my riding and of Ontario and to protect their health and welfare. I asked the question only to assure the people that it is safe and that the wellbeing of that area is taken care of. I do not need a lecture --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. G. I. Miller: The US Environmental Protection Agency lists the same phosphogypsum rock used at the Dunnville plant as a hazardous waste and recommends that it be monitored and treated as such. The EPA action guideline on gypsum waste is five picocuries, and the waste in the IMC lagoons is well over that.

In view of this, in view of the fact that the US Environmental Protection Agency identifies other contaminants in the gypsum waste, which include thorium, barium, cobalt, strontium and arsenic, and in view of the fact that Ministry of the Environment official Alun James said no other developments would be built on the site for over 1,000 years until the radiation cools down, will the ministry issue a control order to force the company to remedy the problem?

Will the minister also check to make sure no radiation is emanating to the Grand River from either the water emissions or ground water leakage? Will he inform this House why his ministry did not treat the gypsum waste as hazardous industrial waste? Will he keep the public informed about the waste and about measures to protect the public? All we are asking is to protect the public.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Let me answer as directly as I can. First, my ministry is monitoring the site on a regular basis at the moment, and I wish the member would convey this to his constituents. Second, the level of contamination in the water at that site at the moment does not exceed the drinking water standard guidelines established by the province. Third, my ministry is negotiating with the company and with the federal government with respect to an appropriate close-out procedure for the company, so there will not be any development on any of the grounds that are in any way contaminated.

I believe I have answered all the member's questions. I want to make it clear that we are concerned about this issue. We are taking all appropriate and responsible steps in connection with it. It is unfair and improper to raise the anxieties of the people in this way. I am not suggesting the member did that, but an associate of the member in the research division certainly did that and released a report to the local media that was very misleading.

ACTIVITIES OF POLICE

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. I raised this matter on April 27 and again on May 15 and May 22. Why has the Solicitor General not reported to the House in connection with the matter surrounding the arrest, detention and subsequent discharge of William Franklin Baker?

Is it because of procrastination? Is it because he is not interested? Is it because he hopes the House will not be in session when the time comes? What is the reason for this lengthy delay? It was eight weeks ago on Tuesday when the agent of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) in a very laconic way stood up in the courthouse in Hamilton and simply said the charges were being withdrawn because there was reason to doubt the veracity of the confession.

Hon. G.W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I received correspondence from the member yesterday reminding me that question had not yet been answered. I am pleased he raised it in the House today. I will inquire into it. I was not on the list of the members of the official opposition who are raising questions, but I am surely on this member's list, and I will inquire into that. There is no reason for the delay other than the fact that there is a great deal of work.

3:50 p.m.

I am sure the member understands that the police officers investigating these matters have many duties and that they do not start and complete an investigation all in one sequence. Sometimes they have to attend court. Sometimes they have other duties to perform. It is not as simple as saying the requisite time has gone by, therefore there should be an answer and the investigation should be complete. They are required to perform many duties other than this particular investigation.

I will obtain the information as quickly as possible. It has nothing to do with the end of the session or anything else other than the work load left to be done.

Mr. Renwick: I have difficulty impressing upon the Solicitor General and the Attorney General that this is not a matter of course. This is a serious matter related to the integrity of the administration of justice from the time of the original arrest and detention of William Franklin Baker until the day he was discharged, a period of some four months.

Regardless of what the Ontario Provincial Police may say about the investigation, which seems to take an interminable amount of time, will the Solicitor General finally come to the conclusion as soon as possible that there must be a public inquiry under section 59 of the Police Act?

Hon. G.W. Taylor: I do not have enough information yet to come to the conclusion the honourable member is asking for. However, I will try to obtain the information for him as quickly as possible on this matter.

LAYOFFS OF CONSTRUCTION SUPERVISORS

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I have a local, regional question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. The minister must be inspired today after that great John Crosbie lecture to the Oakville Tories, during which I understand he was heckled.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Conway: John Crosbie was heckled at a Tory fund-raiser in Oakville. No wonder Paul Godfrey is running to the Toronto Sun and not to the federal Tory nominations.

Can the minister report today on what success he or his department have had in offering alternate employment to those 55 construction supervisors in the eastern region who were laid off or given notice of impending layoff by his ministry about two months ago?

I understand from talking to some of these people -- my constituents and those of my friends the member for South Renfrew (Mr. Yakabuski) and the member for Lanark (Mr. Wiseman) -- that some of these construction supervisors have up to 20 years' experience with the ministry.

What can the minister report to these people in eastern Ontario about their prospects for other employment, either within the Ministry of Transportation and Communications or elsewhere within the Ontario public service in eastern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful that the honourable member is so knowledgeable about a major event that took place in metropolitan Hornby last evening. It was a great event. Mr. Crosbie was there in great shape. I am sure John Turner is quivering in his boots today after hearing what went on there. I would not say he was heckled. Someone just told him they knew how bad the Liberals in Ottawa were and asked what was he going to do about it.

Mr. Speaker: Now to the question, please.

Hon. Mr. Snow: There might have been some confusion. The place was rather sparsely filled. There were only 875 people there.

With regard to the question the honourable member finally got to, we are working very closely with all the employees. I must point out that no employee has been laid off yet. There were 121 notices given out earlier this spring that these layoffs would take place in November. In the meantime, we are working at the regional level to try to place these employees in appropriate employment.

These are construction supervisors. They are not clerks who can be appropriately employed in other ministries. They are basically Ministry of Transportation and Communications employees. We are attempting to accommodate them in other positions within the ministry as much as possible. I know we are having some success. I have not had an update at this moment on how many have been placed. I have certainly heard some have now been placed in other positions. I will get an update on the eastern region from Mr. Forster in Kingston and be able to advise the honourable member in the next day or two.

Mr. Conway: I will certainly be very appreciative of a specific report from the minister this week about who has been offered another place, in what area and at what rank.

Given the crying need in much of eastern Ontario for necessary improvements to the highway infrastructure -- and I think particularly of the Pembroke-Ottawa link, where the traffic volumes on that two-lane highway are serious to the point of being critical in terms of driver safety and the tourist potential we want to develop -- what does it say when the minister's own senior department officials in eastern Ontario give as the reason for this very sharp cutback that MTC is really not doing very much any more in the region? That is why 55 construction supervisors are being let go.

Surely this layoff and the reasons given by the senior ministry staff in eastern Ontario make it very clear the ministry is not doing very much in terms of much-needed road improvements on the Queen's highways of eastern Ontario. They also show that in that great bastion of Progressive Conservative eastern Ontario, once again we are getting the back of the hand and the hind you-know-what.

Hon. Mr. Snow: As I think the member for Renfrew North and all members know, it is quite obvious we have had a substantial cutback in the road-building budget of my ministry. I would have to assure the member that eastern Ontario or any other portion of Ontario is not being dealt with in any different way from any other part of the province.

The layoffs have not taken place yet, but we had to give notice according to the rules. The layoffs were unavoidable. I too hate to see these people given notice of layoff. I know how upsetting it is and the concern it is to them and their families. On the other hand, I do not believe in taking 121 people, whom we have absolutely no work for and trying to hide them someplace on the government payroll. I do not believe in that and surely the member does not.

CABLE TELEVISION RATES

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the same minister in his capacity as minister of communications.

Is the minister aware of a survey conducted by the Etobicoke Condominium Association which shows the fee charged for high-rise condominiums by Maclean-Hunter Cable TV ranges from $2.15 per unit per month to $9.44 per unit per month for the same service; and in town houses from $3.25 per unit per month to $8.44 per unit per month?

Does the minister not believe such differences probably mean that some condominiums are being charged too much by Maclean-Hunter?

Will he investigate, and if he finds a ripping off of condominiums, will he intervene in the next hearing of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission concerning Maclean-Hunter's licence and authority?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I think the quick answers are no and yes.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: You are probably going to retire later this afternoon and consider the events that preceded oral questions. I want to put my final observations on that point very briefly.

I noted in the question period a clear sense of irritation on the part of at least two members of the cabinet, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Brandt) and the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor). I thought they both indicated clear irritation with what transpired here in the earlier part of the afternoon.

I want simply to indicate to you, and it ought not be misunderstood or in any way laid aside, that there is a very great and growing frustration on this side of the House, at least in the ranks of the official opposition, about the very great difficulties we are having in gathering the information we require.

4 p.m.

Once again, lean cite the report of Mr. Justice Campbell Grant. I accepted for many months and years the advice of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) and the first minister that this matter was before the courts, it was under appeal, therefore the sub judice injunction applied and I ought not to have the answers. But seven years after the Premier (Mr. Davis) first gave the commitment, I think the House is entitled to some kind of answer, particularly in view of the Attorney General's latest practice with respect to matters that are sub judice elsewhere or that are in the courts for appeal.

Quite often the Deputy Minister to the Premier, the secretary to the cabinet, answers written questions on behalf of the Treasury bench in a rather brazen way by telling members opposite they can put their questions in question period or they have research staff to get the information.

Speaking for myself, I want to be reasonable about this. I understand the very great difficulty in which you find yourself, Mr. Speaker, in this situation. But for the benefit of, among others, my friend the government House leader, I would say that we want this place to work, and the place is obviously going to work well if there is a sense of mutual understanding and a sense that, within the parameters of practical party polities, we are going to move the place forward.

But it is simply not going to be acceptable for some very prominent ministers to cast aside oral and written questions repeatedly on a number of cases relating to very important matters of public policy, because if we do not as a self-respecting parliament move to correct some of these difficulties, I honestly believe we run the risk of becoming something of an elective dictatorship, and I think that is very unfortunate. Quite frankly, I can imagine circumstances under which I, as a minister with a parliament that sits six months of the year, could hold just about anybody at bay for a long time.

I want to say that, despite my occasional outbursts and misbehaviour -- and I am always apologetic, at least after the fact, for that kind of indiscretion; I have been unparliamentary and indiscreet, let me be the first to say -- I want to see this place work in a very parliamentary way, but some of the extraparliamentary measures that have been resorted to in this place and elsewhere in the Dominion of Canada in the last three or four years concern me as a citizen and bother me as a parliamentarian.

I warn my friends in the government that if a more forthcoming and reasonable attitude is not soon developed and executed, then members of the opposition will be forced to develop and pursue policy by other means, and this place will become an unhappy, extremely difficult and counterproductive place. I would not want to see that happen.

I see the first minister's minions smile behind your dais, Mr. Speaker; they are a very competent and ever watchful lot, the first minister's aides-de-camp -- politically speaking, of course.

As a practising party politician, I accept the natural dialectic that works in this place. I do not expect that the government opposite is going to want to arm the opposition with all the ammunition that will send it to the bottom of this political sea. It is our job, of course, to fire as many volleys as we can at that rickety ship of state with 40 years, nine months and three weeks of barnacles on it for all to see.

Within the parameters of party politics, and as someone who believes very much in the parliamentary tradition, I want to say as I resume my seat that I want this place to work as a respectable Legislative Assembly, and it will work only if there is the kind of mutual understanding and respect that will deliver up on to the floor of this House the kind of answers that have been sought, if not on all these matters, at least on a sufficient number to make the place and the process credible.

If that is not forthcoming. I will say in conclusion, this place will become even more difficult; as I said earlier, we will have to resort to policy by other means, and that would be unhappy and most counterproductive.

Mr. Speaker: If I may just make a very brief observation, let me say that I am sure nobody wants this place to work more than I, and I am sure that concern is shared by members on all sides of the House. It was for that reason that I did listen very intently to the various points of orders and points of privileges that were raised this afternoon. I feel very strongly that one of my responsibilities is to sense the mood of the House and to respond to that sense, whatever it may be.

Having said what you have said and having said what I have said, I have sought advice and I will get back to the House as quickly as possible with some kind of resolution, I hope, to the problem.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker. I was dissatisfied with the response of the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) to the question I raised with him regarding William Franklin Baker.

Pursuant to standing order 28(b), I give notice that I intend to raise the matter at the adjournment this evening. In fact, I gave you formal notice by four o'clock this afternoon, thanks to the alacrity of the page who delivered the message just in time.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to take this opportunity to inform the members that the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) has indeed advised the Speaker, pursuant to standing order 28(b), that he has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to a question from the Solicitor General and will pursue the matter further at 10:30 this evening.

PETITIONS

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, you will be glad to know I have a petition, which reads as follows:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, petition the government and the Legislative Assembly to support the private member's bill of Don Boudria, MPP, to permit the sale of beer and Ontario wine in small, independent grocery stores.

"Pétition adressée au Lieutenant-gouverneur en Conseil et a l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario:

"Nous, soussignés, par la présente pétition demandons a l'Assemblée législative et au gouvernement d'appuyer les projets de loi du député Don Boudria qui permettraient aux petites épiceries indépendantes de vendre de le bière et du vin ontarien."

For those of us who are keeping a running tab on this, this is signed by a further 128 people, bringing the grand total to 11,712.

CONTRACT WORKERS

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a petition signed by about 1,500 people, most of whom work in the cleaning industry in this province; it reads as follows:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, petition that:

"1. The government recognize that many workers in the cleaning industry are paid wages close to the minimum wage;

"2. The government recognize that many companies, such as the Eaton Centre mall, have sacrificed long-term employees for the sake of a cheap contract and lower wages by changing to contractors who bid lower; and

"3. The government of Ontario enact laws to protect the job security of workers in the cleaning industry and any other groups who are in similar circumstances, such as people working in the catering industry, to guarantee that wages are not lowered, workers are not fired and union rights are protected whenever a contract is transferred from one company to another."

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 58 residents of the communities of Kitchener and Wilmot township, which reads as follows:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to appeal to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"The supporters of Rockway Mennonite Collegiate cannot accept the fact that the government of Ontario can boost its support for Catholic and Franco-Ontarian schools while continuing to neglect to support other educational communities.

"In a democratic, multicultural society, choice in education should not provide some schools of choice funding while denying the same rights to others. In at least five Canadian provinces, independent schools are recognized as providing a public service and they receive various forms of financial grants. In Ontario, legislators act as if the 80,000 children in independent schools do not exist.

"Parents and supporters pay the total cost for their education while also paying taxes at the same level as everyone else for public schools they do not use. In fact, in the past five years, parents of children in independent schools have contributed $1 billion to educate other people's children in Ontario.

4:10 p.m.

"When will their children receive some benefit from public education tax dollars? When will this government accept its responsibility to recognize the value of these schools and provide support for them as it does for Franco-Ontarian and Catholic schools. When will this denigrating blot be removed from our democratic, multicultural province?"

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Mr. Gillies from the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill Pr22, An Act respecting the Ontario Association of Certified Engineering Technicians and Technologists.

Motion agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS

Mr. Treleaven from the standing committee on procedural affairs presented a report on agencies, boards and commissions, number 8, which entails reports on the following agencies, boards or commissions: Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Research Foundation; Board of Funeral Services; Board of Visitors of Homewood Sanatorium, Guelph; Crop Insurance Commission of Ontario; Game and Fish Hearing Board; Innovation Development for Employment Advancement Corp; Nursing Homes Review Board; Ontario Board of Parole and Social Assistance Review Board, and moved its adoption.

On motion by Mr. Treleaven, the debate was adjourned.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS

Mr. Treleaven from the standing committee on procedural affairs presented a report on standing orders and procedure, number 3, and moved its adoption:

Mr. Treleaven: Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a brief summary of the recommendations, but I cannot do it if it is down at the table. May I read these at this point?

Mr. Speaker: Briefly.

Mr. Treleaven: This report is on the premature disclosure of committee reports. This has happened three times in the last brief while and so the committee wishes me to read a brief summary.

"1. Before a committee begins writing a report, it should decide whether it will meet to do so in public or in camera.

"2. If a committee meets in camera to write its report, the report should be first presented to the House before it is released to the public.

"3. It is unethical for members to disclose matters relating to the contents of a committee's report which was considered and adopted while the committee met in camera before the report has been presented to the House. Such disclosure may be found to be a breach of privileges of the House and may constitute a contempt of parliament.

"4. The clerk of the assembly should advise persons associated with the writing, printing and distribution of committee reports of the privileges of the House regarding the premature disclosure of committee reports and their duties with respect thereto.

"5. When a committee has written its report in camera, press conferences should not be held and press communiqués should not be released until the committee's report has been presented to the House."

On motion by Mr. Treleaven, the debate was adjourned.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Are you rising on a point of order?

Mr. Laughren: I am rising on a point of information.

Mr. Speaker: With all respect, it is not oral question period.

Mr. Laughren: I do not want to ask a question. I wondered whether the chairman of the standing committee on procedural affairs could tell us if the committee talked about the possibility of whether it is proper for any disbarred lawyer to sit on a committee of the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: It sounds like a question to me.

Mr. Lupusella: Can the chairman tell us whether my presence on that committee has been missed?

Mr. Speaker: I must point out to the member that the debate has been adjourned.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES AND RESPONSE TO PETITION

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, as all members have, I have listened to a number of remarks today, but regarding the last remark, I would like to say to my friend the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), that no one in this House would doubt his sincerity in wanting to make this place work better. I think we all do. However, his intemperate remarks and the threats he makes certainly do not add to that climate.

I say this as I table these answers today, which represent the answers to 418 questions. All but 14 of the questions have been answered as provided for in the standing orders. Also, I draw my friend's attention to the fact that nine estimates have been called. I assume the questions that were to be answered in those estimates debates have been answered. The rest will be answered when those estimates debates occur in the fall.

All I am saying is, the argument that people are withholding information around here is a very hollow one.

Mr. Kerrio: Everyone is entitled to his own opinion.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I hope my friend will also listen to my opinion. If a couple of the pages would like to come over here, I do not want to burden one down with all the answers. These are the answers to questions 300, 303, 304, 305, 324, 332, 333, 336, 399,407,409,410 and 412, and the response to a petition presented to the House, sessional paper 123 [see Hansard for Friday, June 22.]

4:20 p.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned consideration of Bill 99, An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act.

On section 1:

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Chairman, the other night we were debating this and we had to get on to other business; therefore, I could not finish my comments. I want to be very brief.

I want to make it absolutely clear to everyone in the House, so they fully understand our position, that we recognize the government has come in with increases of five per cent in certain areas. I recognize the New Democratic Party will be making amendments to have those increases raised to 10 per cent. We are going to support those amendments.

However, I again want to put forward our position, which I believe will be the fairest position. Concerning the funerals, let us not fool around giving the injured workers $1,400 or $1,500. Let us find out the cost of a funeral and cover the cost for the family of an injured worker. This also goes for the death benefits received by the widow and for the children who are left without a father or mother.

The same goes for the back braces or the upper-limb prostheses. Let us not fool around by saying we are going to give them $350 for a back brace when the actual cost is $500. If the injured worker needs a $500 back brace, let us give him the exact type of back brace he needs and there will be no injustice done.

I have to say to the New Democratic Party that while we will be supporting the suggestion for a 10 percent increase, in my view it does not really address the problems.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, I seek your guidance. I was under the impression that my colleague the member for Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella) had moved an amendment already. Is that not true?

Mr. Chairman: That is correct.

Mr. Laughren: We are debating the first amendment, to clause 36(1)(a) of the act. I am correct, am I not?

Mr. Chairman: That is my understanding.

Mr. Laughren: I am concerned about this section of the bill. The increases proposed by my colleague are modest indeed. I did some very simple arithmetic as to the difference between what a dependant would get under Bill 99, the one we are currently debating, and what he would receive under the new legislation as proposed by the minister, which has already received second reading in this chamber.

For the life of me, I do not understand how the minister can set up two classes of widows. That is beyond my comprehension. When Bill 101 receives royal assent, assuming it does, what we are going to have are spouses who will receive much more than spouses of workers who died before the bill received royal assent.

Let me give the minister an example. When this bill passes, the spouse of a worker killed on the job will get a flat sum of $593 a month. I believe that is the figure; I do not have it in front of me. If there are four children in the family and a surviving spouse, that spouse will get roughly $14,000 to $15,000 a year. Under the proposed legislation, a surviving spouse at age 30 with two children would receive $71,300 in the first year, which would consist of the $50,000 lump sum payment plus a $21,300-a-year pension, which would continue indefinitely.

Does the minister think that is appropriate? What he is setting in place with this bill is a situation where one surviving spouse with one or more children would receive a $21,300-a-year pension, on top of a $50,000 lump sum payment at the time of death, compared to someone whose spouse was killed now, who would receive a pension of around $14,000 or $15,000 a year and no lump sum payment. I think the minister should make this aspect of the new legislation retroactive.

I must confess to being somewhat motivated by events of yesterday and today, but the more I think about it the more I think it is the only fair way. I honestly do not know how we in this chamber could approve legislation that establishes two classes of spouses and dependants in that way.

I understand some of the problems of retroactivity, but I think the differences in this case are going to be so great it would be intolerable to accept them. I hope the minister will think seriously about that. There may be some problems, but I do not think they are insurmountable. Unless the minister indicates that he intends to take it seriously and pursue it, then we will have the opportunity to pursue it further in the committee stage of the new bill when it comes before the standing committee this summer and in the fall when it is reported back to the assembly.

I want to impress upon the minister how we feel about what is going to happen when these significant improvements for spouses and dependants under the new bill are passed. I am not quibbling about that aspect of the new bill, but I am very concerned about the fact that there are people who will be very considerably undercompensated compared to those under the new bill.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, I missed one important point during the course of the debate yesterday. It relates to subsection 36(1) of the act, which sets out the scale of compensation to be paid when an injury results in death. I raised this point even during the committee hearings. I did not get too much support from the minister's colleagues in the committee, but I want to share the point with the minister because I think it is extremely necessary for him to consider my argument.

Three or four years ago I was called by a family in my riding whose son was killed on the job. He was 21 years old, not married and living with his parents. His parents got the burial allowance and nothing else. I do not think the present Workers' Compensation Act and the new amendments or future law that will be enacted take into consideration this concern. If we are analysing an issue based on dollars and cents, the life of a person is equal to $1,500 and nothing else, whether that person has dependants or not. That is completely wrong.

If there had been a car accident and the parents had taken the case before a civil court, I think there would have been a case, but there is no provision within this act. Just because the son was not married and was living with his parents, the only thing they got was the burial allowance, and I think it was less than $1,400 three or four years ago. I do not know what burial expenses were then, but that was all they got.

4:30 p.m.

There is a specific provision within the present act that if the parents are able to demonstrate before the board that their son was still a dependant, they would have a claim. In this case he was 21 years old, so according to his age he had already claimed independence, and he did not have dependants because he was not married. I think it is wrong. The family of this young man spent money for his education and to make sure he would grow up in good health, and I think his family should get some sort of compensation because they lost a son.

I hope the minister, unlike his colleagues, who are not sensitive to this issue, will be able to give me an answer to that and I hope he will be able to accommodate my concern with a change in the act or a different provision, because I do not have my amendment ready to take this concern into consideration. I hope the minister will be able to reply to this serious situation.

Mr. Chairman: Do I understand correctly that the members by unanimous consent prefer that we defer this matter?

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, with great respect, I think I invited the minister to give me a specific comment or an indication as to whether or not he will do something about it. If he did not understand or if I did not make myself clear, I am willing to make my argument again, but I hope I am going to get some sort of commitment from the minister that he is sensitive to this issue and that he will do something about it.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, certainly I will take it into consideration. I am sure the honourable member does not expect me to make a decision right now. I will certainly look at it.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Vote stacked.

On section 2:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Lupusella moves that subsection 36(6) of the act, as set out in subsection 2(1) of the bill, be amended by striking out "$1,500" and substituting therefor "$1,540."

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to reiterate the principle of what I said in relation to this specific case, which I brought to the attention of the minister. I realize he cannot clear his position yet, but I hope he will do something about it.

I hope he will take my concern into consideration, either within the new law or in further amendments that might be introduced in the Legislature in the near future, because I think there are several cases that can be covered by an amendment to the act that will cover cases in which the person involved did not have any dependants, so that eventually the family of the person who died as a result of an injury can get benefits from the Workers' Compensation Board.

I do not see any difference between the person with dependants or the one without dependants who dies as a result of an injury on the job. They should be treated equally in relation to allowances. In cases where the person has dependants, then the spouse should get the benefits, but in cases where there is no surviving spouse, the father or mother of the deceased person should get the benefits from the WCB.

Again, in dealing with the $1,400 or $1,500, which has been increased by five per cent as a result of Bill 99, we are touching a very important clause in this bill. I want to tell the minister that among the ethnic communities this price is paid by a lot of people when they have the misfortune of someone dying as the result of an injury. I am talking about Italian or Portuguese families, or people from different ethnic backgrounds whose burial expenses sometimes reach $5,000 or more.

I do not think my amendment of 10 per cent will take into consideration what the family is going through with the pain and suffering when a person dies as a result of an injury, nor the expenses the family bears for burial expenses. My amendment will not cover the total costs some ethnic people have as a result of these unfortunate cases.

We on this side of the House have raised this concern several times in previous years. I hope the minister will be more generous next time, not only with the five per cent but by also taking into consideration the process the ethnic communities are going through when these cases take place. Even though I support the principle of 10 per cent, in viewing the situation in a more widespread way, the total amount contemplated by the present law is completely inadequate. My 10 per cent will not cover the concern of so many ethnic people who are going through this painful process. I hope the minister will review the situation in the future.

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

On section 3:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Lupusella moves that subsection 43(8) of the act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be amended by striking out "5" and substituting "10," therefor. and that subsection 43(9) be amended by striking out "$26,800" in the third line.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, in this section we are talking about the earnings ceiling. We reject the five per cent increase that has been suggested by the government as a result of the introduction of Bill 99. We maintain and we are consistent in our position on the 10 per cent. I think the 10 per cent would take into consideration our concern in relation to the earnings ceiling for people who are injured on the job.

My specific concern and criticism, which I bring to the attention of the minister and the government, is that each time a law is introduced to increase the level of benefits for injured workers, we always talk about the maximum of $25,500. That sounds like a very generous figure in the calculation of benefits for workers who are injured on the job. The $25,500 makes more sense for the government because it can say the total amount of money injured workers would receive when receiving temporary total disability benefits is extremely high now.

My mind is on people who are not making enough money and who are working for the minimum wage. I think about 35 per cent of the total labour force in Ontario is working for the minimum wage. We are talking about 200,000 workers who are working for the minimum wage. If they are injured on the job, the maximum ceiling of $26,800 is not considered in the calculation of their benefits.

The government was supposed to be more generous in this section about injured people who are not making enough money when they are injured. For example, the minimum amount of compensation payable for temporary total disability is increased from $179 per week to $188 per week effective July 1, 1984, where the average earnings of the injured worker were not less than $188.

The government makes noises about the $25,500 being increased to $26,800 each time there is an increase in the level of benefits, but it never makes reference to the people who are not making that amount of money and who should be considered by the law in a more generous way.

I do not think in 1984 one can live on $179 per week if one is seriously injured on the job and is temporarily totally disabled for a prolonged period of time. The injustice of the system is based on the principle that if a person who works for the minimum wage and is faced with a serious injury, and a person who is making $25,800 is injured and is also faced with a serious injury, when we talk about permanent disability awards as a result of the earning ceiling, the pension differs from one person to the other. Eventually, they end up having the same degree of disability.

The law does not particularly consider the two cases, one of a person who makes $26,800 and the other of a person working for the minimum wage. I think the government should review the situation as well.

Mr. Laughren: Sorry to distract the chairman.

The Deputy Chairman: We want to hear what you have to say.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief because as usual my colleague has said it. The Liberal members want me to string it out, and I do not understand why. Thank you for telling me.

Herein lies the greatest hypocrisy of all in this section. The Minister of Labour would no more have the courage to say to workers of this province they must not earn more than $26,800 any more than pigs can fly. He does not believe in that philosophy or policy of an upper limit on income. There is no way this government believes there should be a ceiling on what people can earn in our society. He simply does not believe it.

How, then, can the minister put an arbitrary ceiling on it just for people who might get injured? What he is saying is to everybody in our society, "Go out there, go to it, it is a free enterprise system, earn what you can." He talks loud and long about how there have to be incentives for people to earn big incomes or we will not be competitive. I hear that all the time coming from the government.

Guess where it all falls apart. Guess where the government says to people, "No, that philosophy does not apply any more"? They say that only to injured workers in the province. Who else is told that there is a cap on his income? That is what the government is really saying to them. It is saying to them: "If you earn up to $26,800, then fine, you can be compensated at the regular rate. If you earn over that, if you happen to demonstrate your ability to earn a higher income than that, because you might be a bonus miner or whatever, we are going to penalize you." If a higher income worker gets hurt, he is penalized. There is no other word for it. The government financially penalizes someone who earns more than $26,800.

Where is the vaunted Tory philosophy of incentive and free enterprise? It all goes down the tube so conveniently when it suits some people's purposes. That is what the government is doing with this section. It has always done it by putting a cap on workers' compensation benefits. What is so crazy about it is that it is not going to cost the employers very much money. It really is not. I said it the other night, and I stand and wait to hear this minister give a logical explanation of why there is an income ceiling on benefits for workers. Why is that?

I have never had an explanation in all the years we have pursued this government on it. That is why, whenever I hear them talk their nonsense about incentives and encouraging people to get out there and work hard, I laugh at them. It is hypocrisy because it only applies to certain people out there, not to injured workers. The government wonders why we say this is anti-worker legislation. It is crass, biased legislation, more so than any other I can think of, that this government brings forward.

4:50 p.m.

It is for those reasons we feel so strongly that we cannot support anything as hypocritical as a ceiling on the income earnings for which workers can be compensated.

The Deputy Chairman: Does any other honourable member wish to participate in this debate?

Mr. Laughren: The minister might want to respond to that one.

The Deputy Chairman: Maybe the minister wishes to respond.

All those in favour of Mr. Lupusella's amendment will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: It would expedite the business of the House if the minister would get involved in the debate. Otherwise, we are going to feel we have to make much longer arguments to convince him. If he would indicate his position on some of these matters, even briefly, it would expedite the debate considerably.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, I am so intrigued by the comments of the members opposite that I am sitting here --

Mr. Breaugh: Dumfounded.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: No, quite impressed. As I said last evening, I plan to address all the matters brought to my attention during the debate in complete detail in my opening statement when Bill 101 goes to committee.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to have you around to bring some light to the members' minds.

At any rate, we have to change the minister's position because we have been raising this particular issue for some time. Now there is a committee of the Legislature undertaking the task of the new law. If we are going to find out the government does not have an open mind about the specific arguments we are making in relation to an important issue, then the committee's work is irrelevant to the points we are raising.

When the minister makes his statement, I hope he will not only respond to the concerns we are raising, but will be able to convince his own colleagues to approach the committee with an open mind so the issues raised will be taken into consideration when the bill is amended.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Lupusella moves that section 43 of the act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

"(11) The amounts payable under this section and those under sections 36 and 44 shall be adjusted on the first day of January, April, July and September in each year by percentage amounts equal to the percentage increase in the average industrial wage for Ontario during the preceding three-month period as indicated by the industrial composite average weekly wages and salaries for Ontario published by Statistics Canada and the initial adjustments shall reflect the percentage increase in the average industrial wage since July 1, 1984."

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, this is a very important issue for injured workers across the province. The same concern has been raised every year by injured workers demonstrating in front of Queen's Park and will be, I am sure, until the government takes into consideration the seriousness of that particular clause, a clause rejected last year as well when the amendments were presented before the Legislature. I remember I introduced a further amendment to that particular section, which was rejected by the government.

I share the concern of the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) about hypocrisy when dealing with injured workers' problems. Here we are as politicians, and every year the government is faced by a group of injured workers demonstrating in front of Queen's Park. Every year we are faced with the same position by the government in rejecting the premise and notion that injured workers' pensions cannot be adjusted automatically with the inclusion of a clause within the statute. If this approach cannot be justified in the case of injured workers, then the same approach cannot be justified by us in the Legislature.

The government has an obligation to try to do something about it. Injured workers have claimed they would like to see the inclusion of this particular amendment to section 43 of the act, which takes into consideration an automatic escalation of injured workers' benefits every year. The percentage of the increase should be based on the average industrial wage as has been published by Statistics Canada.

I do not think the government is sensitive to this particular issue. Every year we have been faced with an increase at the government's whim. Sometimes we have dealt with the increases before Christmas, and now it is before the summer recess when we have to rush the process of the legislation as well.

The member for Nickel Belt can talk about this particular issue for three or four days or even a month. We have ample examples to justify our position. But I think in time we are supposed to face the political reality that there is a majority government and we belong to an opposition party.

With great respect, who knows but maybe some day, somehow, things may change. The political spectrum of this province may change and then the government will be sorry. The question will be, "Why did we not make these changes before when the New Democratic Party talked about them?" I hope someone will listen and make a wise decision when an election is called and people go to vote.

At any rate, I do not think I have any other arguments to convince the minister that this very serious situation does not make too much sense to the injured workers. It does not make too much sense that, besides their injuries, their braces and canes, they are supposed to appear before Queen's Park to demonstrate every year.

The minister also mentioned that the NDP government in Manitoba did not make riot changes. I remind the minister that in Manitoba the injured workers are not demonstrating on a yearly basis to get their increases and they are not extremely upset and angry as they are here in Ontario. I think they are faced with a different political reality. It is up to the government to change its mind to make sure their concerns will be taken into consideration within the new law.

5 p.m.

The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Lupusella's motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

On section 4:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Lupusella moves that subclause 44(a)(i) of the act, as set out in subsection 4(1) of the bill, be amended by striking out "$188" and substituting therefor "$197"; and that subclause 44(b)(i) of the act, as set out in subsection 4(1) of the bill, be amended by striking out "$826" and substituting therefor "$865."

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Speaker, I raised the principles of section 44 in my previous remarks. My particular concern is about the earnings ceiling for people who are not making enough money, who are seriously injured and are working for the minimum wage. I think it is completely wrong in comparison to people in the high ranks of wages, $26,800 and above that amount.

I have a particular concern about permanent total disability which is in the range of $826 a month from July 1, 1984. I expressed my concern before, and I am giving the opportunity to others to participate in this debate as well.

The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Lupusella's amendment will please say aye.

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

On section 5:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Lupusella moves that subsection 45(1) of the act, as set out in subsection 5(1) of the bill, be amended by striking out "but not so as in any case to exceed the rate of $26,800 per annum."

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, I think I made my point; if somebody else would like to state different principles, I am here to listen as well.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, I am rising on this particular amendment, not because the mover does not speak good but because the principle bothers me so much. All I want to do is ask the Minister of Labour --

Interjection.

Mr. Laughren: Maybe that is what the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) is trying to convince the minister of right now. I wonder whether we might have a report from the member for Huron-Middlesex as to whether he is attempting to convince the Minister of Labour to remove the ceiling for compensation of earnings in the Workers' Compensation Act.

Mr. Stokes: Maybe we could have a five-minute recess until the minister and the chair are prepared to listen.

The Deputy Chairman: The honourable member has our attention. We are just checking over the bills and amendments for today.

Mr. Laughren: Once again I would ask the minister to tell us this afternoon why he feels a ceiling is necessary in the computation of benefits for injured workers. First, I assume the $26,800 is an arbitrary figure. As well, I assume almost one third of all injured workers do not have their full income insured or protected under this act, even with the increase. Therefore, I simply ask the minister whether he thinks it is appropriate to deal with this issue.

When the standing committee starts holding its hearings, the minister will be there. He will make a statement, but I assume he will not deal with this section in any kind of detail. Here we have all the time in the world to talk about this amendment and the principle inherent in it. I simply ask the minister again to tell us by what justification any parts of workers' incomes are not considered real or appropriate for compensation purposes. What kind of insurance program is this? What kind of income maintenance program does he have here?

I do not understand it. I do not understand why the minister says the injured worker who earns $26,000 a year should get 90 per cent of his net for compensation purposes when he is temporarily or totally disabled, while the worker who earns $30,000 a year does not get 90 per cent of his net. What is the justification for that? Where is the logic in that? How arbitrary can the minister get?

It is totally beyond my comprehension how the argument can be sustained by the minister. I am more than prepared to listen patiently while the minister tries to sustain that kind of argument. I would surely want to hear the minister put forth his views on why a ceiling is necessary. Why does he feel it is necessary that 32 per cent of the work force should not have their incomes protected while 68 per cent do? What have those 32 per cent done wrong? What have they done to deserve the back of the hand from this government? Why are they being penalized?

Let us have some member over there, perhaps the chairman of the committee or perhaps the member beside him, who is so acclaimed in the law and not disbarred, stand up and say why there must be a ceiling. I do not understand that. Perhaps the former minister the member for Burlington South (Mr. Kerr) could tell us. He is trained in the law as well. There should be a royal commission into what is being taught in law school. They do not seem to be able to sustain arguments that deal with the rights of people under the law.

This bill should be challenged under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I really believe that. I would bow to the superior legal knowledge of one or two of those members out of the dozen or so who have law degrees, but I wonder whether the Charter of Rights and Freedoms says one group of workers can have their incomes protected up to the maximum while the other 32 per cent cannot. Is that not some kind of discrimination? I do not know whether that is allowed under the charter, but it surely should not be. I would not have put my signature to it if I had known this was going to be allowed under the charter.

I appreciate that the minister cannot respond, because I do not think he is trained in the law and therefore has never been disbarred. I understand the minister is unable to respond to my query about this discriminatory clause in the bill. Perhaps some of those members trained in the law could give us the benefit of their finely honed minds to tell us whether this is a legitimate clause in the bill that discriminates against two groups of workers.

I will stand down for the moment, Mr. Chairman, but I may be on my feet very quickly if no one from the government benches stands up to give us an explanation.

5:10 p.m.

The Deputy Chairman: I thank the member. You may have to stand up again. I do not see anyone else wanting to participate.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, I am motivated once again because I do not think it is appropriate to avoid an issue of principle like this. The members of the government party are going to support this bill which sets up two classes of workers in the province -- injured workers at that -- and yet they feel no need to defend it. They feel no need to justify this kind of legislation.

I do not know where they think they are coming from, but just because they happen to have a majority does not mean they can ignore legitimate questions from the opposition. I went through some considerable trauma in trying to deal with the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) for not answering questions because he regards his ministry as his toy. I hope the Minister of Labour does not set himself above the opposition when it comes to debating legislation in this chamber.

I do not know how the minister can sit there and not respond to legitimate points raised by the opposition. I suppose under the standing orders he has a right to do that, but I do not know how he can do it in terms of the spirit and the intent of the Legislative Assembly. If the minister thinks it is not appropriate for us to raise legitimate points, let him say so. If he thinks my arguments hold no water whatsoever, let him stand up and say so. Surely somebody on the government side is obligated to respond to these points. Mr. Chairman, I beseech you once more.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, I would never suggest the honourable member's arguments are not persuasive, well thought out or anything else that he has just suggested I might be thinking about the comments he makes. I take them all very seriously and I will respond. I will give him the rationale at the appropriate time.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, obviously there are no members in their places right now who will keep the minister answering; so I ask you to count and see how many members there are in here.

The Acting Chairman ordered the bells to be rung.

5:17 p.m.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the standing committee on resources development is in our presence. I hope he will speak on this section as well.

Every time we ask the minister to respond, he says, "I intend to make a full statement before the standing committee when it meets." It is my understanding that when the committee meets, it is going to be dealing with Bill 101, not Bill 99. What is the minister talking about? Here we are dealing clause by clause with Bill 99, which is not going out to committee. The intention is to deal with Bill 99 here and now. It has completed second reading, we are doing clause-by-clause and it is going to have third reading before we adjourn; so it will no longer be before this chamber or before the standing committee.

When I ask the minister to respond, he says we will deal with this section when we debate Bill 101. We are dealing with Bill 99 now, and we will be dealing with Bill 101 before the standing committee. I do not want to accuse the minister of being confused about his own legislation. He has only two pieces of compensation legislation in front of him, and I think he should be able to keep the two bills straight. There is no reason for him to confuse this bill with the other one.

Given that fact, and I think the minister will agree I am right, surely he will agree to respond to the points we are making on these amendments while we are dealing with Bill 99. For the minister to say he will deal with Bill 99 when we talk about Bill 101 is total nonsense. I did not even know he could do that. If I know the chairman of the standing committee on resources development, and this minister comes before him and tries to talk about a bill that is not before the committee, the chairman will just pull the rug on him very quickly, because he deals with an iron fist in that committee.

The minister is not talking sense to us when he says: "Oh, I am not going to respond to these amendments on Bill 99. I will respond to them when we deal with Bill 101 ." Does that make any sense? I do not know what the minister is talking about.

Given that fact, perhaps I could ask once again if the minister would care to respond to Bill 99 when we are dealing with Bill 99 instead of waiting and dealing with Bill 99 when we are dealing with Bill 101.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, during each of the previous sessions in which I have been a cabinet minister, before the session was over I eventually lost my temper and said some things I did not want to say. Usually the cause was this honourable member, for whom I have a great deal of personal respect, but he does have a knack for getting under my skin.

I am absolutely determined I am going to get through this entire session without losing my cool.

The member is a skilled orator, one of the finest in this Legislature.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: He is?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Yes, that is right. He knows all the little tricks and he knows the way to get under my skin.

I will confess something. I am just terribly worried that his skills in this Legislature, which are superior to mine, will permit him to get under my skin and that I in turn will lose my temper. I do not want to do that; I have made a pledge to myself that I will not do that.

So I will just make one point and then I am going to sit down and I am not going to get up again, regardless of what he says or how long he says it. He is saying this is not relevant to Bill 101. It is relevant to Bill 101, because at the time we are addressing the ceiling, the ceiling will be addressed in Bill 101. The draft bill already has a major increase in the ceiling, and so it will be discussed in Bill 101. It is relevant.

Mr. Chairman, with the greatest of respect to you and everybody here, I am going to sit down and keep my cool.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, I am greatly relieved at the minister's remarks, because I have been the recipient of some of his anger when he has lost his cool in the past and I never want to go through that again.

However, if I thought the minister was perhaps confused before, now I am absolutely certain. For him to say one minute -- and I am not trying to provoke the minister -- he is not going to respond to these amendments now, while we are on Bill 99, but rather he will deal with the issue under Bill 101, really is an affront to the opposition.

It is true, the minister is quite right that the principle of the ceiling is dealt with in Bill 99 and it is also dealt with in the new bill. But I have been working very hard to try to avoid getting into any kind of debate on Bill 101 because I knew, Mr. Chairman, you would require that I cease and desist immediately if I started talking about a bill that was not before us. I understand that, so I have been trying to concentrate on Bill 99.

However, if you feel the minister is right and if you have some sympathy for his view, then I really should be talking about Bill 101 and I can raise questions now that the minister can deal with when Bill 101 comes before the standing committee. Would I be in order if I were to debate Bill 101, since that is what we are going to be debating when the standing committee on resources development meets in July? Would that be appropriate?

The Deputy Chairman: No. We must deal with Bill 99 and more specifically with the section we are now on and the amendment before us.

Mr. Laughren: I have to stay with Bill 99, but the minister can talk about Bill 99 when we are considering Bill 101.

The Deputy Chairman: If there is overlapping consideration.

Mr. Laughren: I see.

The Deputy Chairman: You were asking for more than that.

Mr. Laughren: I heard the minister say very clearly he would not rise again. I will not prolong it. You can take a horse to water, but did you ever smell a wet horse? I am not going to drag the minister kicking and screaming any farther.

It is an unusual precedent for a minister to sit in his place and decide that he is not going to respond to issues raised under amendments during clause-by-clause debate. That is remarkable. I do not think I can remember a minister saying, "I am not going to respond to anything you raise under these amendments during the clause-by-clause debate." The minister is taking that position because there happens to be a bill coming forward later that is similar in nature. If we see that as a precedent in this chamber, that is a very antidemocratic attitude being displayed by the Minister of Labour.

What are we here for? Are we here debating each of these clauses? Why do we bother making amendments if all that happens is the government members are not going to speak on any of them and are only going to rise in their places and vote against them all? Is the minister saying that putting amendments and debating them is an illegitimate role for the opposition? It does not make sense that it is illegitimate. It is an important and positive part of the process.

If the government decides that because it has a majority it does not have to deal with opposition arguments, let it say that is what is behind the behaviour of the Minister of Labour. We happen to take our role seriously. The member for Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella) worked very hard and assiduously in preparing these amendments. They are serious amendments and there are not more of them than are absolutely necessary to get our point across. They are very reasonable.

In effect, the minister is saying: "You make all the amendments you like and debate as long as you like on any of the clauses, but I am not getting into the fray. In my own sweet time, when we are talking about some other bill, I will decide what I will talk about on this bill." That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

That is a bad precedent and in the long run will not make for the smooth running of this chamber. It is serious that the minister displays this attitude. I have not seen him behave this way before. If it were the member for Cochrane South sitting there I would expect nothing else, but for the Minister of Labour to be in his place and deciding he is above the fray is simply unwarranted. I want to tell the minister I am most disappointed that he has chosen to display this attitude.

The minister may think it is funny, but to us trying to make our points as opposition members, it is difficult enough when one is in a minority situation and in opposition without having the attitude displayed by the minister whereby he decides they are not going to deal with the opposition on a bill that is important.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be the devil's advocate for my colleague for a few minutes. I want to display the principle I am most upset about, the attitude of the minister. On this side of the House we mean business when we talk about injured workers' benefits.

5:30 p.m.

The five per cent increase is the main principle of Bill 99, and the most anachronistic part of the whole picture is that in theory -- maybe the minister is convinced about this -- injured workers across the province will be satisfied for another year. That is completely wrong. We can enunciate all the criticism again and spend the next week or two talking about injured workers' problems as a result of Bill 99.

When the minister says this clause will be considered by Bill 101, he is completely wrong. I want to tell the House why. Bill 99, with the ceiling of $26,800, will be effective as of July 1, 1984. As for Bill 101, we do not know when this damned bill will be before the Legislature. There will be another election, and we do not know what kind of implementation of Bill 101 there will be as a result and what further amendments will be introduced in a new bill.

With regard to the issue raised by my colleague, a feature of Bill 101 is that it does not have any retroactivity clause. That is what the minister has to understand. There is no retroactivity, which means recently injured workers will be considered under the new law. As a result of Bill 101, they will be faced with a different level of benefits, which will be 90 per cent of net.

In Bill 99, we are talking about a maximum ceiling of $26,800. There is a difference. Injured people under Bill 99 will be losing a lot of money compared to the people who will be covered by Bill 101. The minister has to understand that. We are not playing politics. We mean business. The minister has an obligation to answer for the contents of Bill 99.

Let us not take lightly the notion that injured workers across Ontario will be satisfied with a five per cent increase. That is the main reason the Workers' Compensation Act has become so archaic. There is a vivid sentiment across Ontario that it is time to reshape the Workers' Compensation Act. Each time the government introduces clauses to improve the act, the only feature is the so-called increased of five per cent or nine per cent or whatever it is going to be. I think this attitude must be condemned by us and by injured workers. The minister should know about that. All members of the Legislature are aware of this situation.

Each time a bill is introduced, the main feature is five per cent. Here we are talking about concrete concerns and problems affecting injured workers and, of course, the act is becoming archaic and old-fashioned. It does not take into consideration the new realities affecting injured workers in our society. No wonder injured workers are mad and upset.

Besides playing devil's advocate to my colleague, I want to discuss the minister's cold approach to the issues we have been facing. Bill 101 may be introduced at the end of the four-year period after 1984 and after the next provincial election, or near the end of 1990, 1997 or 1998.

I think the minister has an obligation to respond to our concerns about Bill 99 without telling us indirectly that our concerns have been taken into consideration and he is going to have an answer later. Bill 99 will be passed, phase 1 of Bill 101 will be considered and then phase 2. whenever that will he. Again, injured workers are behind and we are talking about reshaping the future of injured workers.

I want to associate myself with the comments of the member for Nickel Belt. I think the minister should be ashamed of himself.

Mr. Laughren: I will just wrap up, Mr. Chairman. I am not going to prolong it.

It was either the House leader of this party or the whip who asked me what time I thought we would be finished this debate this afternoon. I said, "Between half an hour and an hour would finish up all the amendments." As so often happens when the government ministers decide to stonewall on something, dig in, be uncooperative and not carry on debate in the traditional way, things break down and debates get prolonged.

It is not because we were starting to make long speeches. We were not making long speeches on the various amendments to the bill. It was when the minister rose haughtily in his place and said: "I do not intend to take part in this debate. I will see you in the standing committee in July on Bill 101." That is when we felt aggrieved.

I just put that out to you, Mr. Chairman. I know you cannot direct the minister to rise in his place and respond, but it is another one of those cases where -- I do not know whether the minister was trying to expedite things and get through faster than it would have otherwise been, but if that was his intent it sure did not work out that way. On the other hand, if the minister just does not want to debate the clause-by-clause amendments, then that is another matter. It a very serious matter when a minister of the crown does not want to deal with opposition amendments or debate.

I would put it simply that if the government ministers continue to deal with the opposition this way, it is going to make it an awkward place in which to carry on the business of the province.

Mr. Chairman: I cannot help the member with that, except I did hear the minister respond to one of the questions from the member for Dovercourt that he was not quite equipped yet to respond.

All those in favour of Mr. Lupusella's amendment will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Vote stacked.

On section 6:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Lupusella moves that clause 52(3)(b) of the said act, as set out in clause 6(1)(b) of the bill, be amended by striking out "$350" and "$175" and substituting therefor "$365" and "$183" respectively.

5:40 p.m.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, besides the principle of the 10 per cent, which has been consistent with the content of our amendments, we are talking about clothing allowances here. Again, we want to express a particular concern to the minister, hoping he is going to reply, because it is a serious concern. It is part of a process which, as he will realize in a few minutes, will make injured workers' lives easier when they are dealing with the clothing allowance and the Workers' Compensation Board.

I also raised this problem with the chairman of the board and the board itself when it appeared before the committee, but I did not see any positive response. It is just a question of implementing particular guidelines to improve the system and make injured workers' lives easier when they are dealing with the WCB.

When we are talking on the floor of the Legislature about hostilities which arise between injured workers and board officials, and when the board is taking the attitude of being against injured workers when this party raises injured workers' concerns without any positive response from the board, the minister has to realize the principle that enough is enough. He has to recognize there are problems and action must be taken if we are serious as politicians and if he is serious as a minister of the crown, representing the government and operating the Workers' Compensation Board at 2 Bloor Street East.

I gave a practical suggestion to the chairman of the board, also mentioned in previous debates, that when an injured worker is called by the pension department to be assessed in relation to the degree of his permanent disability, it is time a standard form be given to the injured worker to make sure the board will get the information as to whether or not he has been wearing a brace, for how long, for how many years. That application will be processed at the time the injured worker is called for a pension, instead of the injured worker knowing nothing about this particular clause. If he goes around talking to other people, other agencies or politicians, he will find there is an allowance to cover the expense of clothing worn because of the wearing of a harness brace or something that relates to the injury.

The process is quite long. An injured worker has to see a doctor or a specialist, who writes a medical report stating when the brace was given to the injured worker, which year, etc. Such a process can be easily implemented if the board will consider the principle of a standard form to be given and filled out at the time the injured worker is called for a pension assessment. I cannot find an easier process to make an injured worker's life easier.

The other aspect of the situation is that the medical branch of the board is aware of how many injured workers are wearing braces and when they got the braces, either from the attending physician or the specialist, because it is the medical branch of the board that is paying for the braces. They have the statistical data at the medical branch of the board, and here we are with injured workers going around trying to get retroactive payment from the Workers' Compensation Board in relation to the so-called clothing allowance, which in our opinion is inadequate anyway.

I do not want to dispute the amount, I want to dispute the procedure and the way the board is treating injured workers. We have been talking about adversarial positions taken by the board. We are giving constructive recommendations to the board to facilitate the process, but I have not seen anything yet implemented to make the process easier so injured workers do not have to go around seeking extra help from other people to get the clothing allowance.

The other part that bothers me is that even though the clothing allowance has been accepted by the medical branch of the board, by the pension section, the injured worker has to reapply every year. If we are talking about a standard form which will be printed by the board, why does the board not send the standard form to the injured worker asking whether or not he is still wearing the brace in order to qualify for the clothing allowance?

It is a tough process. People are complaining. We are talking about rights. It is a simple right contained within the Workers' Compensation Act. It is the duty of the Workers' Compensation Board to give these rights to injured workers, but injured workers are supposed to demand their rights if they want to get their money or else they will not get their money. This is the kind of board we have in Ontario trying to deal with injured workers' problems. It does not give what the injured workers are demanding anyway, but at least it should give the simple rights that are contained in the act to make their lives easier.

The ethnic injured worker does not speak the language. He does not know how to write letters to the board to say, "I have been wearing a brace since 1975," because that is when this particular clause was included in the act. Then he has to go to the family physician or to a specialist. He has to wait maybe three months to get an appointment from the specialist just to get a medical report that the brace has been prescribed by the doctor, and he has to take that medical report to the board.

It is tough to be faced with injuries in Ontario. but it is even tougher to get benefits from the board within the limitations of the framework of the law. I think it is time that we free this system. It is the duty of the minister of the crown of this government to become tough, even with the chairman of the board. If he is unable to improve the situation on behalf of injured workers, let us get away from the notion that we have to appoint people who have been Conservatives before and that the government thinks they will do a good job when people are suffering.

Let us get away from the people who have been Conservatives for so many years, who have been appointed for so many years to work at different levels of the board. Because of this close liaison between their position and the Conservative government, they never do the job in behalf of the injured workers anyway. Let us clean the environment and let us give the rights to injured workers, because we are not asking for more than that, until the law is changed.

I do not want to talk about patronage. I want to make the injured workers' lives easy and I am trying to give certain guidelines to the minister of the crown to try to improve the system.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Lupusella's amendment will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Ramsay, the committee of the whole House reported progress.

5:50 p.m.

LAND REGISTRATION REFORM ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 66, An Act respecting Conveyancing Documents and Procedures and Recording of Title to Real Property.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I believe I adjourned the debate, having just commenced my remarks last evening with about 10 minutes to go before we adjourned the evening session. It would appear I have 10 minutes or so left to give about an hour's speech, so the chances are I might be adjourning the debate again at six o'clock.

I had made a few brief remarks the other evening about the registration, or the lack of registration, of foreign-owned land in Ontario. I said it is rather unfortunate there is no section in the bill that really deals with the foreign investment in our farm land. There is no act in Ontario that really places any control over the purchase of agricultural land by nonresident foreign interests, unlike practically every other province in Canada where there is legislation restricting the amount of land that can be owned by nonresident foreign investors.

Foreign nonresident ownership of agricultural land in Ontario is not a new phenomenon. We in the Ontario Liberal Party and I personally have been concerned about this increasing trend for a number of years and have tried to impress upon the government the need for action in this area. A major problem in getting the government to act, however, has been that one cannot solve a problem if one will not first acknowledge its existence.

As far back as 1973, a select committee of the Ontario Legislature on economic and cultural nationalism recommended to the government in its report on foreign ownership of Ontario real estate that "future acquisition of land by individuals, including agricultural land and the opportunity to farm in Ontario, should be restricted to Canadian citizens and landed immigrants residing in Canada." Needless to say, this recommendation was rejected outright by the government. A government member on that committee, who later became the Minister of Agriculture and Food, was the one dissenting vote on that recommendation.

On December 15, 1978, I asked the former Minister of Agriculture and Food whether he was aware of the widespread and serious concern about block purchases by foreign investors of agricultural land in Ontario. I also asked him whether it was true foreign interests were circumventing the land transfer tax by forming Ontario corporations and whether he would undertake a survey of current foreign ownership of rural lands in Ontario and monitor all new land transfers.

This request, however, was rejected. It was only pursuant to my private member's bill in 1979, which would have required the registration o

f all foreign-owned land in Ontario, that the province introduced its own act on December 1, 1980.

The government's interim report of October 1981 indicated only 148,000 acres were foreign-controlled. In November 1982 our party released details of corporations and individuals that were able to circumvent the government's registration legislation as well as the Land Transfer Tax Act.

Those details involve 3,585 acres of farm land in Huron and Bruce counties. These parcels were discovered through investigations at local land registration offices and represented only a fraction of the sales that had occurred throughout the province, unknown to the government. In those sales alone, $846,000 in land transfer tax had been circumvented.

We were provided with another interim report in December 1982 which, in our opinion, clearly demonstrated the need for the government to become serious about this problem and to come to terms with this very disturbing trend. While the government continued to downplay the significance of the problem, we were told nonresident ownership in Ontario had increased by more than 100,000 acres since the previous year.

On May 24, 1983, the government brought in for second reading a bill to amend the Land Transfer Tax Act, which was to ensure that a nonresident may not avoid the 20 per cent rate of tax imposed on conveyances of land.

Unfortunately, while this amendment plugged the loophole, there is still no means of ensuring that nonresidents forming Ontario companies to purchase land will register under the Non-resident Agricultural Land Interests Registration Act. We believe this can be ensured only by an amendment to the Corporations Act to the effect that land companies with nonresident ownership must first register with the Non-resident Agricultural Land Interests Registration Act before they file under the Corporations Act.

Moreover, we have seen in cases we have documented that the individual who was acquiring the land for other unknown buyers will not have to pay the 20 per cent land transfer tax in the future, since he has now become a landed immigrant. He has established a host of numbered companies into which he will amalgamate future land purchases. In reality, these companies represent the shares which are owned by the true nonresident investor.

However, this legislation was merely another example of a government that will act on a problem only after it becomes painfully obvious to all that a situation no longer can be tolerated and is so controversial the government must be seen to be doing something.

As far back as 1974, when the land transfer tax was first announced, they stated, "Where a nonresident acquires control of a corporation which owns land in Ontario, this will be deemed to be a transfer of land and the tax will apply." However, the government never chose to introduce that section of the bill at that time, for whatever reason.

The government's latest registration report of March 31, 1983, indicates that 165,476 acres of agricultural land are foreign owned. However, these figures must also be questioned, since the extent of these purchases has never been seriously or completely investigated by the government.

The true purchases of this land are unknown and the details of the purchases continue to be denied to us. For example, the government's latest figures indicate that Bruce county contains 9,146 acres of foreign-owned land. However, the latest figures compiled by the Bruce County Federation of Agriculture indicate the problem is much more widespread, with 14,550 acres foreign owned.

The sad truth of the matter is that the government has never been serious about discovering the true extent of the problem. Only when the true figures on the extent and concentration of nonresident ownership are known can public policy on the question be debated intelligently.

We in the Ontario Liberal Party are concerned not only about the loss of our agricultural land to foreign interests, but also about the long-term effects on rural communities resulting from increasing nonresident concentration. A very disturbing aspect of this trend is its concentration in certain areas of Ontario. In certain townships, the extent of foreign buying is not one per cent as the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) maintains, but rather five to 10 per cent.

We do not want to see our agricultural land controlled by nonresidents to the same extent as other sectors of our resource economy. Foreign investors generally have greater access to capital at more favourable interest and exchange rates and can afford to pay more for land in a competitive market. This can prevent local young farmers from entering the industry.

An increase in absentee ownership can lead to an increase in those renting all or part of their holdings. This trend is detrimental to farm efficiency and productivity. We must avoid the scenario of our farmers becoming tenants on our own land. Absentee ownership leads to a loss of population in the countryside, the erosion of traditional farming communities and the breakdown of social pride. A major shift to foreign ownership will reduce local control over decisions that affect the area.

Part of the reason our economy is in trouble today is we have sold most of our industry and roost of our businesses to foreign interests. They have a large control over practically everything that takes place in this country. Surely we are not about to let our primary resource, agricultural land, go into the hands of nonresident foreign investors.

I tell the members that it is happening. I am going to end my remarks by reading a letter I received the other day from a realtor. I will not give the name of the person because I am not at liberty to do so, but the letter reads as follows:

"Dear Mr. Riddell:

"As you are no doubt aware, there have been inquiries as to the availability of farm land from foreign interests, Germany, etc., and in this regard I was wondering if you could direct me as to whom I would contact at foreign consulates in Toronto to advise them of what land there is available. Any assistance you can offer in this regard is appreciated."

That is a letter from a realtor who is looking for foreign investors to buy our agricultural land. If this realtor wrote to me, how many other realtors are running around the country offering farmers good deals on agricultural land, knowing they have foreign investors ready to buy up as much land as they can possibly get?

It is a serious situation, and I sincerely hope this government takes some interest and starts to take some measures to control the amount of land we are allowing to go into the hands of nonresident foreign investors.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

June 21, 1984