Hansard Transcripts 1980-Nov-04 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege to correct the record. Yesterday I posed a question to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott) which contained the information that provincial offences officers from Harwich township had obtained a search warrant for ministry files. This information was obtained at a meeting in Harwich township last Friday, attended by the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Bounsall); Mr. Michael Phipps, the administrator of the township; Mr. Maurice Van Gassen, the reeve of the township; another councillor; a parliamentary intern and myself. I have now learned that the information about the search warrants was incorrect. I withdraw that statement and I apologize to the House.

The fact that a search warrant had not been obtained was the only item on which my information was in error. The provincial offences officers were engaged in a search of ministry files and they did thereby obtain information that was not previously in the possession of the township, information that will assist them to protect the environment of the township and to enforce its bylaws.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member was quite right in his secondary observation that it was to correct the record. It didn’t involve a question of privilege.

Since this seems to be the time for apologies, I think I owe the member one as a result of a supplementary that he posed to the Minister of the Environment yesterday. I indicated at the time that I hadn’t heard an interrogatory remark and, therefore, it was not a question. On checking the record, I find I was in error, and for that I apologize to the member. As a matter of fact, the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) were firm in their own minds that there was a question. I was just as firm that there was not. The record proves I was wrong, and for that I apologize.

On Monday, October 27, and again yesterday, the member for Wentworth raised what he deemed to be a matter of privilege with respect to answers by the Minister of the Environment to questions tabled on October 9 and October 10. I gather his main point was that in answering the member’s question 275, tabled on October 9, the minister tabled all material to the date of the question, which material I may say was quite voluminous. As I understand it, Mr. Isaacs suggests there was a further letter, dated October 16, which was not included.

It is not my obligation to research the minister’s answers and decide whether or not he should have included additional material. It is the prerogative of the minister who, as I have already pointed out, may answer as he sees fit or not at all. Therefore, I find no evidence that any of the recognized privileges of the member of this House has been breached by the minister’s answer. If the member is dissatisfied or he thinks that further material should be forthcoming, he may simply table another question.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AUTO PARTS EXHIBITION

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, as members are aware, one of our government’s major initiatives to strengthen and support Ontario’s automotive and automotive parts industries is our involvement in SITEV -- the Société internationale de transportation et véhicules -- the world’s foremost automotive parts exhibition held annually in Geneva.

For the past three years, my ministry has actively participated in this international auto parts show and the results have been outstanding. In 1979 alone, the Ontario manufacturers who attended SITEV reported $14 million in actual sales as a direct result of the exhibition.

Last May, I led the largest Ontario trade mission ever -- a mission composed of 35 Ontario auto parts manufacturers -- to SITEV ’80 in Geneva. These manufacturers displayed their products to 30,000 auto parts buyers from 45 countries throughout the world. Sales projections resulting from the 1980 show amount to $23.6 million and manufacturers have reported 19 joint venture prospects, three licensing opportunities, 35 invitations to quote on major auto parts contracts and 15 branch plant prospects. In addition to the $23.6 million in projected sales, actual sales made during the show totalled $1.3 million.

One of the major challenges that Canada and Ontario have always had to overcome is attracting key automotive decision-makers to visit our country, look at Ontario, meet our parts manufacturers and see firsthand our province’s potential as an investment location and as a source of their parts requirements.

When I attended SITEV last May, I arranged to spend some time with the organizer Mr. Roland Dana, as we were aware that plans were being made to expand SITEV by adding an exhibition in America and one in the Far East. Subsequent to our discussions last May, Mr. Dana agreed to visit Ontario at the invitation of my ministry, which he did earlier this fall. I am pleased to announce today that as a result of that visit, Toronto has been chosen over competing American jurisdictions to host SITEV America. The exposition will be held on June 16, 17 and 18 of next year at the Canadian National Exhibition grounds.

Unlike SITEV Europe, which is a conventional trade fair, SITEV America in Toronto will serve as a forum for auto parts and vehicle manufacturers from around the world to meet for discussions on joint ventures, licensing arrangements, partnerships and opportunities for establishing production facilities in the Americas.

Participants in SITEV America will include buyers from North, Central and South America, Europe and Japan; industrial location specialists representing European and Japanese automobile manufacturers; original equipment market suppliers; and national, state, provincial, municipal and industrial development officials. Financial, taxation and project planning experts will also attend to provide detailed information to interested companies.

SITEV America is the first specialized international industrial development forum of its kind ever to be organized for the automotive sector. During the course of the three-day exposition, conferences and symposia will be organized in conjunction with the exhibition.

My ministry is working with the organizers of SITEV by using our network of international and domestic offices to recruit suitable participants. Those participants will include companies capable of and interested in gaining access to international markets, and companies that wish to enter into joint ventures and licensing arrangements with other countries. We will also be in contact with the federal government and with the governments of other provinces to encourage their support and participation.

The SITEV automotive exhibition has gained an international reputation as the meeting place for key decision-makers in the automotive industry. By ensuring that a SITEV exposition will be held in Ontario, we are offering our auto parts manufacturers a major opportunity both to meet these decision-makers firsthand and to learn about and acquire new technology, and we are offering Ontario municipalities an opportunity to make contact with potential investors in this most important sector.

2:10 p.m.

We are determined to ensure that SITEV America in Toronto is a major success, and we will be devoting a great deal of time and effort to maximize the opportunities presented by bringing the world auto market and industry to Ontario for the first time.

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN COLLECTION

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay well-deserved tribute to Mr. Robert McMichael, who has tendered his resignation as director of the McMichael Canadian Collection.

The exceptional growth of the collection and the increased complexities of gallery administration have had a great deal to do with Mr. McMichael’s decision to turn over the gallery’s operations to other hands. The day-to-day detail has become tremendously involved and it is entirely understandable that somebody with Mr. McMichael’s broad interest and vision would want relief from it.

Mr. McMichael’s resignation will take effect when the collection’s board has appointed a new director and chief executive officer. I expect the board will be announcing that appointment within the next two months.

In the meantime, all honourable members will be happy to know that both Robert and Signe McMichael will continue to be close to the collection. They will continue to act as trustees. Mr. McMichael will hold the title of founder director-emeritus and, in addition to being a member of the board, will act as a consultant and adviser to it.

Mere words cannot do justice to the scope and meaning of the gesture the McMichaels made to their fellow Canadians in 1965 when they donated their collection of Canadian art and their property and residence to the people of Canada through the government of Ontario.

In the 15 years since, thanks to their sensitive stewardship and the support of the people of this province, the collection has grown to 2,000 pieces from the original 300. The scope of the collection has also broadened significantly and it now encompasses some of the most outstanding native Canadian art to be found anywhere.

One has to visit the collection to appreciate fully just how much it tells us about ourselves and our land. One has to see the collection to understand how vital it is to us today and, more important, how vital it will be to future generations.

The collection’s artistic and cultural value is manifest. It has also proved to be tremendously popular. Last year, for instance, almost 300,000 people passed through the gallery’s doors. Incredibly, that was second only to the Art Gallery of Ontario among all public art galleries in this entire country. That is an outstanding tribute not only to the collection and the gallery, but to the tremendous energy the McMichaels and everybody with whom they work have spent in drawing so many fascinated people to the collection.

I know all honourable members will want to join me in thanking the McMichaels most profoundly for their dedication and commitment. Mr. Speaker, with your permission I would like to identify Robert and Signe McMichael in the Speaker’s gallery.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

TORONTO ISLAND HOMES

Mr. S. Smith: On a point of order, if I might, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister not going to say any thing about the writs which have been issued on Toronto Island? Is there no statement on this subject?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I will answer a question.

Mr. S. Smith: Then I will ask a question if the minister has no statement for the House. When one has only two questions, one has to preserve them; preserve and conserve them, that is what I try to do.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TORONTO ISLAND HOMES

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs unaware of the fact that at least one writ, an eviction notice, has been served? The one I have here is a photostat of one served on David Amer and Elizabeth Amer, 11 Willow Avenue, Toronto Island. Is the minister prepared to comment on this? Why has he been apparently powerless in persuading Metro to hold off, to cease and desist in this? What is the minister going to do?

Hon. Ms. Wells: Mr. Speaker, let me give my honourable friend an answer to his question. First of all, I am well aware of the writs and I have been well aware they are going to be served. I want to say first and foremost, I think it is a stupid and inhuman time to suggest anybody should be evicted on November 17, practically at Christmas. I think that indicates to the member that I am concerned about the matter and intend to devise some way to find a solution to the problem.

What solutions are possible? We have been considering those solutions and I have made no statement today because we have not come to any conclusion as to the best way to proceed at the moment. There are three ways we could proceed to stop those evictions:

First, the writs were asked for by Metro and Metro could ask that those writs not be served. I have received a letter from Paul Godfrey saying that he and Metro council will not do that. I do not agree with that action because I still say it is an inhuman time to suggest writs be served and I think Metro council should realize that, particularly since they know, as we all know in this House, the Swadron commission still has to report. The Swadron commission has held the most extensive review of the whole island situation undertaken in the last three or four years and I believe its report will be invaluable. However, in their wisdom, they have decided not to ask that those writs not be served.

The second way we could handle this matter expeditiously would be to pass, unamended, Bill 5 which stands on the Order Paper of this House. My friend shakes his head. We have suggested what we think is an acceptable solution. I recall the Toronto Star, in an editorial, said this would be a very acceptable solution. If my friends in the official opposition will remove their reasoned amendment, I will bring forward and call Bill 5 this evening; we can pass it and those writs will not be served. The Swadron report can then be presented and there will be plenty of time for people to consider what further action could be taken.

I want to make it clear that passing Bill 5 this evening would cause those writs not to be served. Passing the reasoned amendment of the Leader of the Opposition today would not stop those writs because all that amendment does is to ask Metro not to proceed. I can tell my friend, based on my experience in dealing with Metro, they will still pay no attention to that reasoned amendment and they will not cease to put those writs through.

The third course of action is that we could consider some short-term legislative action that would cause the writs not to be served so the Swadron report could be considered. There are certain legal difficulties connected with that. Cabinet will be considering all these courses of action tomorrow. On Thursday, I will report to my friends what is going to happen.

I again emphasize I think it is stupid and inhuman to suggest anybody should be evicted on November 17 and I wish Metro would take the bull by the horns and do something about it.

Mr. S. Smith: Since it appears the minister is going to have to bring in some short-term legislation at the very least, could he kindly commune once again with his fellow party member, Mr. Godfrey, the man who apparently is doing what the minister calls a stupid and inhuman thing, and tell him to stop sending out these writs since the minister has every intention of bringing in short-term legislation? Given that the date of vacation of the premises is supposedly November 17, 1980, will the minister guarantee that we will have that bill here in this House on Friday so it can be passed early in the week, to stop the suspense in which these people are being kept, totally unnecessarily?

2:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I have asked my friend, the Metro chairman, about this and I have had a letter back from him saying he will not do anything to cause those writs not to be served. I have to emphasize again that if this House really wants to take quick, speedy action let us pass Bill 5 tonight.

I want to underline again that even passing the reasoned amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition will not cause the writs not to be served, but passing Bill 5 will quash the writs. If my friend will agree to pass that bill, we could perhaps even have His Honour stand by to give royal assent to it tonight.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: As the minister knows, Bill 5 is not an option that is acceptable to either of the parties on this side, nor to the islanders, and it is probably unacceptable to Swadron himself. Why does the minister not instead bring forward today a stay of process as a minimum until the Swadron commission has reported? There is nothing to stop him from doing that.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I thought I indicated that was the third option open to us, and that option, along with others, will be considered by cabinet. We worked long and hard on Bill 5 and it does offer an opportunity for this House to stay those writs today. It also still offers an opportunity for the Swadron report to be presented and to be read, and for us all to consider further action. I think the members opposite misunderstand. They do have it within their power to do something today under the rules of this House, but they do not want to do it.

RENT INCREASES

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question on a different topic for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Since this seems to be the day for discussing the insensitivity of his friend at Metro, would the minister care to comment and tell us exactly what he intends to do regarding a proposal to increase the rents on Metro-owned housing well beyond any of the guidelines that a rent review process would normally apply if such housing were under the rent review process?

Does the minister not recall that in this House assurance was given that Metro would not go beyond the rent review guidelines when Metro housing was exempted from the rent review process? Will the minister, therefore, act on behalf of the provincial interest to be certain that no increases in rent take place beyond the rent review guidelines?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I will have to look into that, Mr. Speaker. I know nothing about it. I have spent all morning looking at the Toronto Island problem. I will have to take that under consideration and get an answer for my honourable friend.

Mr. S. Smith: Perhaps I should redirect the question to the Minister of Housing who appears to know a little bit more about the matter. I might just say parenthetically that if the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs did spend all morning on the island issue, why did he not have a statement for the House on that matter?

May I ask the Minister of Housing if he recalls the assurances given that publicly owned housing in this regard would voluntarily obey the rent review guidelines when such housing was exempted from the rent review process generally? If he does recall that, is he prepared to act in some way to make sure that these unwarranted rent increases, well beyond the guidelines, do not occur?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: As to the first part of the question, Mr. Speaker, I can only say that what I know about the situation is what is in the front page of the Toronto Star today. I have asked the people in my ministry to check with Mr. Godfrey and others at the Metro housing authority as to exactly what has taken place.

In replying to the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon, I would not want to say these rent increases are unwarranted because I do not know the basis on which the rent increase of 60 per cent, which seems to be the maximum, has been incurred at this time. I am prepared to wait until I have the report before me to assess exactly why this situation has developed.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, it is clear the Progressive Conservative government of Ontario is now getting from its Tory friends in Metro the same treatment it is handing out to its erstwhile Tory friends in Ottawa. Since this is so, would the Minister of Housing undertake to bring in legislation that would ensure that where housing that happens to be municipally owned is available in the commercial market it will be subject to rent review guidelines? The exemption for municipalities was clearly directed to social housing that would be at below-market rents.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, when the Residential Tenancies Act was being reviewed for a period of about 18 months, that question was repeatedly asked of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea), who reports for that piece of legislation. It was clearly indicated that where socially provided housing on the market is on a rent-geared-to-income basis, that in itself is the rent control factor. That is exactly where we stand on the issue at this moment.

As for the increases that are now taking place, I would be wrong to try to guess why they have come about, but let me suggest to the leader of the third party I would imagine that most of the people giving the advice to the Metro housing authority would likely come from his friends in that government.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. The chairman of Metropolitan Toronto has refused to take action on the island issue because he does not want to change the policy of Metro council. What right does he have to change the policy of Metro council when the local councils are functus? It has to be a change in policy because he has said on his rent issue that the policy of Metro was not to increase beyond six per cent. Would the minister consult with Mr. Godfrey to see how that kind of policy change can be made at this time?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, I will be happy to, Mr. Speaker.

LIQUID INDUSTRIAL WASTE

Mr. Cassidy: In the absence of half of the cabinet, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Deputy Premier about liquid industrial waste.

Has the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott) reported to the cabinet on the outcome of a meeting that was held on October 27 at the Park Plaza Hotel attended by the Deputy Minister of the Environment and his senior officials, along with representatives from some 21 companies that are major generators of hauled liquid industrial wastes in Ontario? It was a meeting chaired by Stelco’s chief executive officer and the corporate manager for Ontario of Imperial Oil Limited.

Can the Deputy Premier explain to the House why it is that the Deputy Minister of the Environment and other senior officials should closet themselves with these senior corporate representatives in a meeting that focused almost exclusively on political solutions to the problems of disposing of liquid industrial wastes rather than planning acceptable and safe technical solutions for the disposal of such liquid wastes?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I am a little amazed that in the second part of the honourable member’s question he indicated what he thinks went on at the meeting. I would assume there is nothing unusual for officials of a ministry to be meeting with people to seek some information with respect to the extent of problems and ultimate solutions. I cannot share with him what went on at that meeting. I will take the question as notice. The Minister of the Environment will be here and can respond to the member’s question on Thursday.

With respect to communication between the members of the cabinet and their colleagues, the communication is good. The Minister of the Environment and his officials are committed to a grand plan with respect to the treatment of industrial waste in this province. I am certainly satisfied they are busy every day on the subject, striving for solutions and also striving, ultimately, to solve these particular problems. I would leave the details with respect to any meetings that may have been held for the minister himself to respond to.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Cassidy: Would it shake the faith of the Deputy Premier in his colleague the Minister of the Environment if he learned that, according to the report we have received from a participant in that meeting, they were told there were no technological barriers to the disposal of liquid wastes but only political barriers? Would it disturb the Deputy Premier to learn that the Ministry of the Environment has prepared draft legislation with which it can overrule municipal bylaws to shut down liquid waste disposal sites, but that the ministry is holding back from introducing that legislation only because it fears the political repercussions?

What right does the Ministry of the Environment have to discuss that kind of political approach to the disposal of liquid industrial waste with the companies that are the major generators of liquid waste in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I cannot add anything to what I have already said in response to the main question.

As far as the faith of the member for Brock in his colleague being shaken is concerned, I certainly would not have any particular trouble reaffirming my faith in the minister. I know, as this House knows, his commitment to the program he has referred to on many occasions in this House in addressing this particular problem. I would feel that as one talks about a problem, one certainly has to have some consultation with those who are dealing in this matter just as one has consultation with a wide variety of people in seeking a solution.

How accurate the report of the leader of the third party is with respect to the meeting I have no way of knowing, but I am sure the minister will comment on it when he returns to the House en Thursday.

Mr. Isaacs: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the Deputy Premier also aware that one of the things that meeting was told was that it would pose a disaster for Ontario if the United States border were to be closed to Ontario liquid industrial waste? Does he not think it is a tragedy if planning in our Ministry of the Environment depends on export of our problem to the US for protection of our environment?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, if memory serves me correctly, the minister has addressed this particular situation. I repeat once again that he has announced, in some detail, plans with respect to the treatment and ultimate disposal of this waste in this industrial jurisdiction. I would think he would welcome the co-operation and support of all honourable members as we seek a solution to a very important problem.

I sit here as a member hearing the unconstructive and unsupportive response of a number of people as the minister strives to seek the solutions. I am quite convinced that against the background of the program he has announced, we will find satisfactory solutions for the treatment and disposal of the substance.

MINI-BUDGET

Mr. Cassidy: I have a new question for the Treasurer, Mr. Speaker, arising out of the federal Liberal budget which came down last week. In view of the large increases in the price of home heating fuel that were announced in that federal budget, can the Treasurer tell us if he has received assurances from the federal Minister of Finance that there will be protection from these higher costs for low-income families in Ontario? If not, has he made representations to the federal government on that subject, and what has he urged?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I thought I referred to that in my statement. No, I have received absolutely no assurances and the budget itself had absolutely no measures to alleviate the problem. I got hooted out of the place when I pointed out that at least John Crosbie’s budget had done that.

Mr. Cassidy: In view of the reports of the Canadian Council on Social Development that the budget is going to cost low-income families some $500 in 1981 -- and that is just the first year’s increase -- will the Treasurer make a commitment now to include in the mini-budget next week an energy tax credit for low-income families which at least will alleviate the increase to those families in the price of their home heating fuel?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Obviously I am considering a number of measures in that supplementary action I intend to take. Obviously I am going to consider that kind of thing without in any way implying it will happen.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I assume the Treasurer has heard more responses in the last few days since the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Ramsay) asked the question about the uncertainty in the retail market because of the apprehension of some retail sales tax cuts in the Treasurer’s mini-budget. Is the Treasurer prepared now to straighten out that matter to prevent this apprehension and loss of sales in the short term which are affecting a number of retailers in this province?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I think the question directed to me by the member for Sault Ste. Marie was related to automobiles. The answer I gave appears to have satisfied the Automobile Dealer Associations of Ontario. I obviously cannot speculate on other measures, because I cannot reveal the contents of my actions until I present them. Otherwise, I would give the member or someone else an advantage in advance.

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: When the Treasurer is presenting his supplementary action, as he prefers to call it rather than a mini-budget, will he assure us that any action he takes, whether it be a sales tax reduction or an energy tax credit, will be designed to provide a cushion for low-income people? And will he not be unduly persuaded by the arguments of the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) that the federal budget was a brilliant one?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I suppose brilliance is in the eye of the beholder, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Foulds: He was bedazzled.

Hon. F. S. Miller: It was reflected glory. Perhaps they accepted the member’s advice for a change. The member is nodding his head saying they did. I hope the people of his riding recognize that, because it was not a budget at all. I am sure my colleague the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) would agree with me that it was an energy statement and not a budget at all. It did not tackle one fundamental economic problem of this country. We have done so well in this province we still have room to take some supplementary action.

FOREST CUTTING PRACTICES

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources in regard to his mismanagement of the forest industry in the province.

Does the minister recall his answer to my question last week about clear-cutting in the province in which he indicated the forest management agreements dealt with the size of clear-cuts and restriction of the size of clear-cuts? Does he know the forest management agreements do not deal with the size of clear-cuts in northern Ontario? Will he give instructions to his district foresters that the size of these clear-cuts should be restricted so that we do not have desert land left in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, in my reply last week I think I indicated one of the things that would be dealt with in forest management agreements could be clear-cuts. At the same time I think I also said that to set a maximum size for clear-cuts was impractical, I am told by foresters, because of soil conditions, temperature of the zone, perhaps the slope of the ground, and the species of trees.

I am clearly informed by our staff that the matter of clear-cuts will be considered in any program submitted by the licensee, as well as methods of planting and methods of harvesting -- all those things we went into in some great detail last spring when we were going over the amendments to the Crown Timber Act. I think we will probably have an opportunity to discuss that in my estimates tonight or tomorrow, and some of the professional people will be there.

Like many other things, it sounds very simple to say there should not be any of this or any of that, or there should be some arbitrary limit. In some cases that kind of approach means we are going to do too much, and in other cases it means we are going to do too little.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Is the minister aware of the 1976 report of the Great Lakes forest research centre on black spruce regeneration on strip-cuts and clear-cuts in the Nipigon and Cochrane areas of Ontario? It found there were greater regeneration failures following unrestricted clear-cutting. Will the minister table all the unpublished Ministry of Natural Resources regeneration surveys they have?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I am not aware of that specific part of the report to which the honourable member referred. I will certainly endeavour to table the information we have in reports from licensees -- not third-party agreements, but primary licensees -- on regeneration. I qualify that by saying I will try to give the member a report shortly on what we can publish, because a report can be anything from a letter to a four-inch document.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister tell us what has happened to the internal recommendation of his ministry that clear-cuts be restricted to a size of 325 acres? Is that now a matter of policy? Can he tell us the rationale behind the ministry’s new method of reporting success with regeneration in which they use a category described as “area not requiring regeneration”? Is that the one third of the forest that the ministry is essentially writing off and allowing the companies to timber mine?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, as far as the first part of the question is concerned, I am not aware of such a policy. There are many recommendations that filter through the staff. There is no policy in the ministry of any specific maximum or minimum cut. I think the honourable member is aware of that. There is a policy but it does not set a figure, which is what I just explained to the member for Rainy River.

Mr. Foulds: You rejected it.

Hon. Mr. Auld: The honourable member is aware that there is a large staff. Forestry, like medicine and a number of other fields of endeavour, is not an exact science and there are different opinions; there are different opinions on different areas.

Going back to the not satisfactorily regenerated areas in the province, the honourable member remembers very well that we talked about that last spring. I have forgotten the total acreage of not satisfactorily regenerated areas in the province, but I know it is many thousands of acres. I think I indicated at the time that we would be expecting to get regeneration on those areas in the course of the 10 years starting with last year. That does not mean regenerating areas that are not naturally productive areas.

PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED WORKERS

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary for Social Development respecting sheltered workshops for the physically handicapped.

May I ask the provincial secretary whether she has seen the research document prepared by the policy secretariat of the Ministry of Community and Social Services in April 1979. If she has, is she familiar with table 2-59, which shows that, in the sheltered workshops for the physically handicapped which employ clients of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, 37 per cent of those workshops are not accessible to wheelchairs?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that.

Mr. McClellan: Since the minister is in charge of co-ordinating festivities for the International Year of Disabled Persons, may I ask whether she is aware of table 2-89 of the same report which shows that the median wage for the handicapped workers in the province’s workshops is $318 a year? In other words, 50 per cent of the workers are earning less than 20 cents an hour. Will she not agree that the International Year of Disabled Persons is the time to end the minimum wage exemptions and to get the rehabilitation programs out of that miserly welfare department and put them under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Labour?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: To begin with, we are not planning festivities for the International Year of Disabled Persons. We are planning to enable handicapped people to enjoy the same rights and privileges as everyone else through employment opportunities, through educational opportunities and through housing.

Mr. Warner: Try to stop exploiting them.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: That is the member’s opinion; it is not mine.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The minister is entitled to an opportunity to respond.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I would remind my honourable colleagues across the way that many of the workshops that are available to people who are mentally retarded -- grossly retarded -- provide an opportunity to learn, to develop, to grow. They are not provided for them as a means of earning a livelihood. Those people are looked after, but it gives them a place to go and to meet other people, a place to have an opportunity to have some socialization, which is something those members do not seem to understand.

AMHERSTBURG JUVENILE HOME

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Is the minister aware that the ministry has announced the closure of the Amherstburg Juvenile Observation and Detention Home, where children who are wards of the court are sent to spend a particular period of time before the court makes a final decision as to what should happen to them, or where children who have special difficulties at home are sometimes sent? Why is the minister approving the closure of this Amherstburg detention home, which is in an ideal location and has operated very well and successfully for a number of years?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I do not have with me all the details surrounding that decision, although I do have some familiarity with it. I believe I have corresponded with the honourable member on that -- perhaps that is not a correct recollection -- but the situation there is similar to that in other communities across the province, where observation and detention homes are located. We are trying to locate them as close as possible to the areas they serve and in some instances to reduce the size of those units so they can more effectively serve the needs of the children and the communities. That was one of the major considerations underlying the decision to which he refers.

Mr. Mancini: I would first like to say I have not received any correspondence from the minister concerning this matter.

Does it not concern the minister that this detention home would be closed by his staff without his having full knowledge of the matter so that he could respond to questions in the Legislature?

Why is the minister not capable of protecting the disadvantaged people we have to protect in our society? Why is it the minister can allow retarded women to be kicked in the face in his homes? Why does the minister allow foster children to remain in the homes of foster parents when it has been proven they have been molested? When can we expect from the Minister of Community and Social Services some protection for the disadvantaged?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I think the honourable member just flipped out. I am not sure what that almost totally incomprehensible question was all about. If he is talking, for example, about individuals being kicked in the head, I think I know the case he is referring to, and I resent the suggestion that I did not take a stand on that issue. I resent any suggestion that I or the staff of my ministry would not take stands to protect the vulnerable people in our society. That is a totally irresponsible question.

ITINERANT FARM WORKERS

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health concerning the accommodations provided for immigrant farm workers at Thornbury, Ontario. Can the minister explain why the local medical officer of health would refuse a request by Canada Manpower to inspect the premises used as accommodation for black farm workers from the Caribbean? In particular, is he aware that we now have a situation in which black farm workers are expected to live in units that have no running water, no toilet facilities, no shower facilities and holes in the wall?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me give some of the background. Since 1975, the agreement with the Canada Department of Agriculture, I believe, has been that in those cases in which a farmer wishes to bring in itinerant workers the local medical officer of health will be called on to inspect the premises it is proposed will be used.

I do not have all the facts yet -- I have had one report -- but in this case the medical officer of health apparently received the report and did not refuse but was not able to inspect the premises because the Grey county council had cut his budget in each of the last two or three years and he was short-staffed. That is not an acceptable situation. I wrote to the Grey county council about six weeks ago demanding an explanation and I hope to have the matter resolved.

Mr. Breaugh: Is the minister aware that the farmer in question also happens to be the reeve? Is he aware of allegations that the reeve may have used some influence on the local medical officer of health not to conduct such inspections?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Let me clear up any possible aspersions on the character of Dr. MacPherson. I do not believe he would succumb in any way, shape or form to pressure of the type suggested by the honourable member. I was not aware of the name of the farmer, let alone his position. I know Dr. MacPherson to be a man of high integrity.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. J. Reed: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker; I would like to ask the minister what happens in municipalities that do not have a medical officer of health? Who looks after the inspection then?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, every municipality either has a medical officer of health or, if the MOH has died, retired, resigned or whatever, it has an acting MOH.

Mr. Conway: My question is for the Minister of Health and it concerns withdrawal of services by the interns and residents.

I want to know if the minister can indicate at this point in time what, other than neutrality, his government is doing and what he himself, together with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie) and the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Miss Stephenson), is doing to end this serious and alarming situation, given the fact that this withdrawal of services now is in its sixth or seventh day and given the fact that there is strong evidence from very good quarters that quality of care is being jeopardized.

Can the minister indicate in his answer specifically what the policy of this government is with respect to the issue, which is, what is going to be allowed by way of a dispute resolution mechanism? What is his policy on that central question?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, first of all, contrary to the honourable member’s preamble, there is no indication that quality of care is being undermined. To be sure, a few hospitals have taken steps to reduce elective surgery, but we are in regular touch with all 23 teaching hospitals and we are assured that, with the co-operation of the interns and residents, they are maintaining emergency services and critical services such as intensive care, coronary care units and the like. It is wrong to suppose, and there is absolutely no evidence to support the member’s supposition, that the quality of care is being undermined.

Secondly, we convened further meetings last evening, and meetings are going on today. The Ontario Council of Administrators of Teaching Hospitals is in touch this afternoon with the Professional Association of Internes and Residents of Ontario. I am pleased to report that those meetings have resulted in substantial progress. We will keep the members and the public informed.

Mr. Conway: Will the minister address himself in this House to the central question; what is this government’s position on the main question, which is, what kind of a dispute resolution mechanism is it prepared to allow in so far as the interns and residents are concerned?

Secondly, has the Minister of Health not read in the Globe and Mail of Friday, October 31, a letter signed by, among others, Doctors Gold, Biggar and Read from the Hospital for Sick Children which said in part: “Despite assurances to the contrary, we believe that the public should be aware that such a strike will affect the care of children, and the potential for hazard to patients is real”?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am aware of that opinion of three or four of those doctors. I am also aware that the responsible officials of the hospital have indicated to us on a daily basis that they are able to carry on. In fact, that particular hospital cancelled elective surgery for about a day, I believe, but as of yesterday it is back up to full service.

With regard to the first part of the member’s question, I believe that will be resolved in the negotiations which are under way and which, as I said, have seen substantial progress.

GRANTS TO PULP AND PAPER COMPANIES

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. Given that the members of Local 2995 of the Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union have been on strike with the owners of Elk Lake Planing Mill Limited since February 1980, can the minister explain why his government agreed to extend $3 million in grants and $5 million in loan guarantees from the employment development fund during September 1980 to the same owners for the construction of a waferboard mill in Englehart?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I would have to go back into the records to see when the decision was made to support the waferboard plant at Englehart. It is many months ago and I believe it predated the strike. It has been our policy -- if the member checks with one or two other areas -- to try to stay out of any labour disputes when an EDF request comes in and to await their peaceful resolution before we make a decision. I do not recall anyone mentioning to me that there was a labour dispute at the time the decision was made. Having reached an agreement at the cabinet level, it is often possible for six, eight or 10 months to elapse before a signed contract is made public.

Mr. Wildman: I appreciate the minister’s comments about the attempt to remain neutral. Since the owners of the company experiencing the strike are the same people who own the company that received the grant, will the minister give us a commitment to suspend any further payment of EDF funds to the owners of Grant Waferboard pending a resolution of the present labour dispute with the union?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I think that would be a relatively unfair position to ask us to enter into for either party’s sake in a strike. Surely the member, as a member of his party, believes in the collective bargaining process. Would he like either party to use that kind of influence?

Mr. T. P. Reid: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I would ask the Treasurer whether he is not concerned that these grants -- and that is what they are, with no strings attached -- do not require from these firms any kind of social or community responsibility of performance or any guarantees of employment. Does he not feel it is time, particularly when he is giving away taxpayers’ money, that there should be some kind of social and community responsibility required of these companies and certain expectations that his ministry requires?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I believe the contract is generally signed by the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman), and I can assure the member that the strings attached are numerous.

INVESTMENT COMPANIES’ FAILURE

Mr. Bradley: A question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Mr. Speaker: Will the minister indicate what he is prepared to do today, November 4, 1980, for people such as Mrs. Pamela Wathen of St. Catharines, who is one of many people who do not have too much money to spare, who lost money in Be-Mor Investment Management Corporation and who are still awaiting word from the minister as to what the provincial government is going to do to compensate those who lost their money, they feel, as a result of negligence on the part of the provincial government?

Hon. Mr. Drea: On November 4, 1980, Mr. Speaker, the minister is going to reply as he did, I believe, on October 10, 1980.

Mr. Bradley: As I well recall the answer the minister gave on that particular date, does he not agree that Re-Mor investment Management Corporation was granted a mortgage broker’s licence by the provincial government less than two weeks after C and M Financial Consultants Limited, whose chief executive officer, as we know, is Mr. Carlo Montemurro, had its operation suspended? Does he not feel an obligation then on the part of his government to assist those people who have last their money, many of whom do not have a lot of money to lose?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I believe I discussed that on October 10 as well, but I intend to get the federal government to take care of the entire matter. The member knows that as well as I do. If the federal government had never chartered Astra Trust, there would have been no action.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I would like to ask the minister about this statement in which he takes so much pride in which he refused to answer the question last time.

It is clearly a fact that under section 5 of the Mortgage Brokers Act the ministry and the government are liable and responsible. While the minister said they were not liable at the time, he refused to give a single reason why they were not. Will he take this opportunity to explain to the people who have been ripped off because of his negligence why the ministry is not liable under section 5 of the Mortgage Brokers Act?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is a lawsuit directed against the crown on the matter of negligence but once again, if the member wants me to win it in here, I will be delighted. The ministry was not negligent in the issue of the mortgage brokers registration.

3 p.m.

Mr. Hall: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Do I take it from what the minister said that he is going to get the federal government to bail him out? In the event that he is unable to do so, will he take on the responsibility of taking care of the problem?

Hon. Mr. Drea: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not say that. I went over this in October and I pointed out the position of this government in regard to funds that were transferred from Re-Mor Investment into Astra Trust. I believe that was the subject of some litigation by the trustee at some time in the past.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Didn’t even have the decency to answer a question.

Hon. Mr. Drea: What is the member’s problem?

Mr. Speaker: Just ignore the interjection.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I answered the question to some detail in October. I am trying to obey your admonition, Mr. Speaker, to make the answers short and snappy. If the member is never here to hear it, that is not my problem. In that position in October, I outlined the approaches I intended to take.

Mr. Hall: Supposing they fail.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I do not think they will fail.

ONTARIO SCIENCE CENTRE

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Culture and Recreation. I am sure the minister is aware of the allegation by an American visitor in a letter to the Toronto Star last August that there is sex bias in the displays, films and narrations at the Ontario Science Centre. Has the minister asked the centre management to make a survey of all displays, narrations and materials used at the centre to ascertain whether there is an excessive degree of sexism in the exhibits and materials?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I must admit I did not see that letter in the Toronto Star. I have seen hundreds of other letters from Americans who visit the Ontario Science Centre and tell us what a wonderful place it is. I will certainly look into this and report back.

Ms. Bryden: In view of the fact that there are thousands of school children who do attend the Ontario Science Centre and who would be affected if there were sex bias, will the minister undertake to have a survey made of all materials, exhibits and narrations?

Mr. Speaker: That is just a repetition of the initial question.

HALTON FINANCIAL DEFICIT

Mr. J. Reed: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells), who has disappeared from our midst, I will direct this question to the Deputy Premier.

Yesterday the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs refused to grant a commission of inquiry into the deficit of the regional municipality of Halton under the signatures of more than 50 good citizens of Nassagaweya. He explained to us at that time, incredibly enough, that a deficit is not allowed under the legislation that sets up the region.

I wonder if the Deputy Premier will take to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs yet another petition, signed this time by 250 good citizens of the city of Burlington, requesting that similar action be taken. They ask that a commission of inquiry be undertaken into the administrative and fiscal affairs of the regional municipality of Halton, pursuant this time to section 121 of the Regional Municipality of Halton Act.

Will the Deputy Premier ask the minister to reconsider his refusal to grant that commission of inquiry, since this matter is most serious in the eyes of the citizens of the regional municipality of Halton?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I will be very pleased to see that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs receives the material which the honourable member is now sending over to me. I will leave it to the minister himself to comment on the other part of the question.

Mr. J. Reed: I have a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: I want to draw to the honourable member’s attention that a supplementary should be as a result of an answer to the initial question. As I recall, the answer to the initial question was that he would draw it to the attention of the minister.

Mr. J. Reed: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I think I can justify it on that point.

While the Deputy Premier is presenting that to the minister, will he ask the minister if he can prepare himself to respond to the question on Thursday?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Yes.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. As a result of a question I put to him several weeks ago regarding air ambulance service, he indicated he was going to make a statement in the Legislature as to precisely what that policy was going to be, because of the difficulty many of us were having with air ambulance service and the payment by the Ontario health insurance plan. Is the minister prepared to make that statement now, or if not, when?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I thought my undertaking was to send it to all the members, and it is being prepared.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister prepared to change the rigid, bureaucratic, three-point guidelines that the ministry has been using with regard to transportation costs, particularly on the return journey for someone who has been referred to a medical centre like Toronto for essential services not available in the north?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, as we introduce the fixed-wing aircraft into the system in the months to come, it is our hope that we will be able to co-ordinate that in such a way as to have it travelling back and forth with as many passengers as possible. The general policy is one we have discussed many times before and we have no plans to alter the overall policy.

CHRONIC CARE FACILITIES

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. Is the minister aware that the waiting list for chronic beds in Windsor and Essex county has doubled within the last year, and is he taking any steps to see that the 70 chronic care bed patients who are now in active care beds and 28 patients in nursing homes who are waiting to be readmitted to chronic care beds are taken care of?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Not long ago, Mr. Speaker, I approved an additional 100 nursing home beds for Essex county. I am not sure whether the advertisements have gone out yet for that competition but, if they have not, they will be very shortly. I think, with the additional nursing homes beds for the county, that first of all will relieve some pressure.

Second, the chronic home care program is just getting under way in Essex county, which should have a salutary effect on the waiting list.

Third, I believe the health council in that area is doing a review of the long-term care needs. There will always be some waiting lists; it is not conceivable we will ever get the situation where there is simply no waiting list but, if they get to be inordinately long, the council will be recommending, based on that review, additional facilities.

A number of initiatives have already been taken in the area, such as the additional nursing home beds and the chronic home care program.

HENRY KOWALSKI

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. On October 30 I asked the Premier (Mr. Davis) about the circumstances surrounding one Henry Kowalski, who has been incarcerated in our mental health system for more than 12 years. The Premier indicated the minister would give us a reply yesterday. Is he prepared to answer that question today?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, as I understood it, one of the honourable member’s concerns was under what authority the gentleman in question continues to be detained. The authority is under the Mental Health Act with respect to involuntary committals.

The second matter had to do with the whole question of whether he should be at Penetanguishene. I have asked the regional review board in that area to conduct a special review of his case and to advise on whether he should continue to stay at Penetanguishene or whether some other setting in the mental health system -- potentially, I suppose, even including absolute release back to the community and his family -- would be more appropriate.

Mr. Breaugh: Is the minister now prepared to proclaim that section of the Mental Health Act which would provide for notification to the local legal aid society in the case of an involuntary committal?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: My apprehension about the question of confidentiality of an individual, which I hope members will accept as genuine, is as real today as it was when we discussed it two and a half years ago.

3:10 p.m.

Two things: I do not want to stall on that forever because I do not think it is appropriate, I hope the report of the Krever commission will be out in the not-too-distant future --

Mr. Conway: Before the millennium.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Before the millennium, yes. It will deal with this among many other questions of confidentiality.

Second, based on the legal task force report, a component of the Ontario Council of Health review of mental health services, we are working on a white paper on further amendments to the Mental Health Act which will be coming out as well in the not-too-distant future.

Mr. Conway: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The Kowalski case speaks to the very considerable apprehension felt by many in this Legislature and in the health-care community generally about the amendments that were represented in Bill 19 two years ago. As I recall, a commitment was made by this minister to bring that bill back for a review not later than 18 to 24 months after proclamation. In the light of the evidence the Kowalski case speaks to, is he prepared to undertake to bring back that Mental Health Act for some kind of review to see how those new sections are working?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I will have to check the record, Mr. Speaker, but I believe I indicated that Bill 19 was not and should not be considered to be the end of the process of updating the Mental Health Act. Second, at that time, the council of health task force on mental health services under Professor Abbyann Lynch at the University of Toronto was at work and has since reported, including a report on the act itself. It was a legal task force, a legal subcommittee. That has spawned a white paper, which we are developing and which we hope we will release within the next two months, dealing with all of these issues.

BRUCE TEACHERS’ DISPUTE

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Education. I am getting scores of calls every day from people in the Bruce area asking what I am doing about the strike. I do not know what the hell to tell them. The feeling up there is that enough is enough. We have enough problems up there now. We want to organize tuition for students from seven to nine in the evenings. Do we have to bring 1,000 students down here to tell the minister we are fed up with the whole system? Why cannot she legislate these teachers back to work and get on with the business of educating our kids?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I believe the honourable member knows that this afternoon I will be meeting a group of individuals from Bruce, concerned parents and citizens in the area, who wish to present me with some further information which they feel is important.

The conditions under which negotiations take place, as I have said before in this House, involve the assumption of responsibility by both parties. One of the happy features in the Bruce situation is that the board has suggested it would move to voluntary arbitration, and did agree to do that. One of the most experienced, and certainly one of those applauded most highly by the members of the official opposition in his capacity as a mediator, fact-finder, assessor, has been ready to function on behalf of both parties in that disagreement to develop a negotiated settlement. He has been standing ready since the strike began. That offer is there. Mr. Teplitsky is ready to assist the parties. I would hope, through pressure the local member might bring to bear on certain of the local individuals, to bring the members of the teaching profession at least to an agreement that they could support arbitration or that they would go back to the negotiating table.

FEDERAL BUDGET

Mr. S. Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: On Friday, the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) was supposed to address this House with regard to his response to the federal budget, which was described by the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miler) as a federal energy policy, but the Premier (Mr. Davis) said to the House, “although the Minister of Energy was to make a statement, I have asked him to make that statement early next week,” so the Premier could respond to Mr. Lougheed’s comments. “Early next week,” it seems to me, was yesterday or today. I feel a number of us have been waiting for the response by the government of Ontario to the energy policy of the federal government.

It is very difficult for us to believe that Ontario has changed its response as a consequence of Mr. Lougheed’s comments. Surely it should have been ready to say whatever it wanted to say about the federal budget before now. Why have we not heard that statement?

Mr. Speaker: The Deputy Premier and the government House leader are responsible for ordering the business of the House. If they have nothing to say, we can go on to something else.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, by way of explanation I might say that since Friday’s statement of the Premier there seems to be some indication that perhaps there would be some renegotiation of some aspects of the package. It was felt at this stage that we would defer any comment pending the outcome.

Mr. S. Smith: What about the Premier’s speech? Has he changed his mind about it?

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. M. N. Davison: Pursuant to standing order 28(a) I wish to give notice of my dissatisfaction with the response to my question by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea) and to announce my intention to raise the matter upon the adjournment of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Notice has been given of this and the matter will be debated at 10:30 p.m. tonight.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I find that very unusual from the honourable member. He knows I cannot be here tonight. We have even moved up one of my bills.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I would be satisfied to be here Thursday night.

Mr. Speaker: Agreed; so ordered.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Gaunt from the standing committee on social development reported the following resolution:

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

Ministry administration program, $19,891,-000; adult services program, $1,064,999,000, and children’s services program, $369,919,000.

MOTION

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that as Monday, November 10, is municipal election day and Tuesday, November 11, is Remembrance Day, when this House adjourns on Friday next, November 7, it stand adjourned until Thursday, November 13; but this motion will not affect any committee meetings scheduled for Wednesday, November 12.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Dukszta moved first reading of Bill 179, An Act to amend the Education Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Dukszta: Mr. Speaker, the bill sets forth the procedure for the establishment of heritage language programs in order that the heritage language may be taught as a language of instruction, as a subject of instruction, and as a language of instruction for the purpose of transition to English or French.

BOROUGH OF YORK ACT

Mr. Young, on behalf of Mr. MacDonald, moved first reading of Bill Pr46, An Act respecting the Corporation of the Borough of York.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Young: This bill entitles the borough of York to pay compensation to the widow of an employee who is killed in an unfortunate accident during his employment.

Mr. Speaker: Bills of that nature do not require an explanation.

3:20 p.m.

JEWISH FAMILY AND CHILD SERVICE OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO ACT

Mr. Rotenberg moved first reading of Bill Pr45, An Act respecting the Powers of the Jewish Family and Child Service of Metropolitan Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day I would like to table the answers to questions 227 and 228, 231 and 232. 298 and 359 standing on the Notice Paper. (See appendix, page 4070.)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would also like to inform the House that tonight, time permitting, in addition to the order of business announced last week, we will be considering Bill 167, An Act to amend the Chiropody Act, following the bills that were on the list.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CITY OF LONDON ACT

Mr. Breithaupt, on behalf of Mr. Van Horne, moved second reading of Bill Pr21, An Act respecting the City of London.

Motion agreed to.