The House met at 2:02 p.m.

Prayers.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I have a message from the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor signed by his own hand.

Mr. Speaker: John B. Aird, the Lieutenant Governor, transmits supplementary estimates of certain additional sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1981, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly, Toronto, November 20, 1980.

REPORT IN TORONTO SUN

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege involving the defamation of my character.

I have been serving in public life for 17 years. I have come to appreciate and understand the political process. I have won political battles; I have lost political battles. I have worked in my community to serve my constituents to the best of my ability. I have had debates with my colleagues in municipal council and in this Legislature. I have had open and fair discussions, disagreements and agreements with constituents at public meetings and in other places.

I have derived a great deal of satisfaction out of being able to serve in this capacity, notwithstanding that, being in public office, one sometimes has to expect to take slings and arrows and abuses. One learns to live with those and accepts them, save with one exception.

The one exception of fundamental importance to me is that at no time during my public life would I permit a person or a group of individuals to malign me at any time or to endeavour through false statements or actions to lower the esteem in which I am held in my community by my peers, by my family and by my constituents. While I was a member of the municipal council of North York I had the unfortunate experience of being maliciously libelled by the Toronto Globe and Mail. It gave me cause to initiate a libel and slander action, the result of which was that a public apology was made in that newspaper to myself and to my family.

On Tuesday of this week I learned that on Thursday, November 13, I was libelled in this Legislature. You may recall that on that occasion I had a resolution before this Legislature dealing with the request to limit and to better control the proliferation and indiscriminate location of adult entertainment parlours throughout the province. At that time I indicated that while this province had taken great initiatives through this government in endeavouring to bring about these controls, more could and should be done.

During the course of that debate, I learned subsequently on Tuesday of this week, one of two members of this Legislature, with intent, with calculated purpose and with malice aforethought, sent a note, a written statement to a member of the press. It was the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) or the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham) who sent a note to a reporter for the Toronto Sun, Mr. David Oved, maliciously alleging I had danced with a striptease artist in a strip joint in a cocktail lounge in Washington, DC, in 1976.

That libel was designed specifically to impugn my integrity. It was designed to induce that newspaper to publish a libel against me. That libel was followed this week by a slander perpetrated by both of those gentlemen through slurs and innuendoes in a statement they made to the same reporter for that newspaper.

2:10 p.m.

I have two further things to say, but first I am going to demand here and now a full apology from the member for Rainy River and the member for Wentworth North. I will accept nothing less. If that is not forthcoming, I have two further matters to discuss.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I presume it is on a point of privilege the member for Oriole has risen. It is one of the few times in my life that I have seen somebody die of self-inflicted wounds.

The honourable member has accused me and another member of libel. He started out his statement by saying it was either/or and wound up his statement by demanding an apology from both of us. I would think that as a lawyer and somebody who is intimately involved in this particular process, he might be a little more careful about his legalities and the way he approaches the matter.

I stand before this House to deny categorically that I sent any note to any reporter in the press gallery in relation to the incident the member has put forward to the House. I did not seek out any reporter and speak to him. That has never been my political style. We will beat the members over there by better policies, better government and better candidates and all the regular operations of the democratic process.

I feel now that my integrity has been impugned by the member, who has accused me and another member, and that member can speak for himself, but my integrity has been impugned in the very way that the member says his was impugned. I think he should have been a little more aware of the facts and done a little more research before he made that statement, which has slandered and libelled me in this House and before the people of Ontario.

To my mind, I read the article with some amusement, if nothing else. I think it is being blown out of all proportion. But I would repeat that I sent no message or letter, nor initiated any telephone conversation or any kind of suggestion with any member of the press in regard to this incident.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: What did you say to the reporter?

Mr. T. P. Reid: I said, and I believe I was quoted in that article, that I was not prepared to say anything about the matter because “none of us is squeaky clean.” That is the quote I made to that particular reporter after he approached me. I did not approach him; I did not send any letter. I understand the member for Oriole was subsequently approached and spoke to that particular reporter.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: But you are one of those quoted, though?

Mr. T. P. Reid: In that phrase that I have just put forward.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, I feel my integrity has been impugned. The member has suggested I tried to seek out a reporter to give him this story, if that is what it was. I categorically reject that. I deny it. I stand in my place to demand a full apology from that member.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, I stand by what I said, that both of the gentlemen in question slandered me. There were two individuals involved and only two. The newspaper article, and I will quote it, states: “‘The first guy I see is John Williams,’ one of the MPPs remembered. ‘I would have given $100 for a camera that day.’” That is what one of the members said. It was either the member for Rainy River or the member for Wentworth North, because the other MPP said: “Williams seemed to be enjoying himself. It wasn’t a classy place.” If that is not a slur and an innuendo, that is slander.

I will make two further points. When I became aware of this matter, I walked over to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) because I saw that he, the ever-smiling member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) and their leader were having some satisfaction and enjoyment out of the fact this matter was about to become public knowledge. I think the member for Ottawa East was pointing a naughty finger at Mr. Oved up in the press gallery at the time.

I approached the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, for whom I have had, up to this point, the greatest of respect, and I asked him if his party would consider what it was doing in stooping to this new low, in condoning, with the knowledge of that caucus, that type of sleazy cheap action, which impugns the integrity not only of the Liberal caucus but of the whole of this Legislature. What I got from the member was a “Well” and a shrug.

I would have assumed these gentlemen at least, in the front ranks of the Liberal caucus, would have had the integrity to speak to those less-principled members of their caucus who had perpetrated this libel and slander. I am asking in the name of decency that the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, his leader and the member for Ottawa East, together with the members for Rainy River and Wentworth, reconsider their position.

I will rise in this House after the votes this afternoon, in continuation of my point of privilege, to determine whether an apology is forthcoming. If it is not, I will be proceeding with a libel and slander action against the two named members for Rainy River and Wentworth North.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I feel I must rise on this particular issue. I was the chairman of the select committee on highway transportation and was, I suppose, in charge of the committee’s trip to Washington.

I, too, read the article in question with some shock and also discussed the matter with the Liberal House leader as to the actions taken by one of two members of the Liberal Party. I find it very shocking that members of this Legislature could resort to this type of tactic. As the member for Rainy River stated earlier, the Liberal Party is content to depend on its good policies to beat this government. It certainly is not depending on its good character in this case. It certainly is not demonstrating it.

I regret very much that a committee of which I was chairman, which to this point has deserved and earned a good reputation and presented an excellent report that has been well used, has to be tarnished by this type of action because of irresponsibility on the part of the opposition.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I really must respond very briefly by simply indicating to you that I know of nothing that requires an apology, and there will not be an apology. The member for Oriole indicates his extrasensory perception somehow in knowing what is in the minds of the people across here. If he is so sensitive that he thinks we are laughing at him, I suppose occasionally he is correct.

Mr. T. P. Reid: We have laughed at the member for Oriole for years.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Oriole has risen on what he alleges to be a breach of his privileges as a member of the House by one or more other members of this House. He has made very serious allegations and used very strong language in bringing it to the attention of the House. I think it only fair that I give the other member to whom the accusations were directed an opportunity to respond. Having done that, I will judge the information to see whether there is a prima facie case.

2:20 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MASSEY-FERGUSON, WHITE MOTOR CORPORATION

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Industry and Tourism pertaining to the farm implement manufacture industry in Ontario but particularly in Brantford and Toronto.

Can he confirm that the principal new investor in the Massey-Ferguson situation has publicly withdrawn and that there is no new investor in sight, which means the Massey-Ferguson situation has rapidly been downgraded to the point where we must once again look for new government initiatives to save the company? In the same connection, will he report to the House on the situation involving the White Motor Corporation, where the parent company has been purchased in the United States and the American purchaser has indicated it will not purchase the Canadian subsidiary because it is in receivership?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Massey-Ferguson portion of the question, I would report to the honourable member that discussions are still going on between Massey-Ferguson and several potential and, I believe, fairly serious Canadian purchasers of the company. Also, Massey-Ferguson has had a great deal of success in convincing its international and Canadian investors to stay with the company. In other words, they are leaving their money in, they are continuing to extend credit in order that the company may continue to operate, and their suppliers are keeping them in a situation in which the current financial viability of the company remains intact.

With regard to the White situation, the White Motor Corporation of the United States, which was also in what is referred to as chapter 11 receivership, has now been purchased by an American corporation. In buying the shares of the White Motor Corporation, they buy the Canadian shares owned by White USA and the Canadian assets.

The purchaser has not yet filed an application to the Foreign Investment Review Agency, which will be our first indication and, perhaps more accurately, the clear and final indication with regard to what the purchaser of the White Motor Corporation intends to do with regard to the Canadian assets. I would hope that at the very least we would see a FIRA application come through. That would be some indication that there is at least that minimum position; that is, though it will continue to be foreign-owned, the people will be able to go back to work at a newly financed and repurchased White Motor Corporation.

Mr. Nixon: Since the continuing uncertainty in this matter is having a very serious effect on the confidence that farmers and consumers have in the two companies, and particularly if there is some indication they will not be in business perhaps this time a year from now, does the minister not feel he should make a firmer statement in support of the government policy to keep both operations in progress? Would he not agree it is not enough to say that Massey-Ferguson’s current viability is not interfered with, when there is every reason to believe its current viability will lead it to a cessation of business unless there is some new money involved?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I do not think there is any secret about the fact that unless a substantial reinvestment package -- that is, one of many hundreds of millions of dollars -- is put together for Massey-Ferguson, the company is going to be unable to make it. It is important that Massey-Ferguson’s creditors have enough confidence in the company to have left their money in it. They are aware of the fact that, as time goes on, Massey-Ferguson is not making a profit each month -- in fact, it is expected to continue to lose some money -- but those creditors, who are currently in a position in which their money is at risk, are prepared to leave their money at risk rather than foreclose on the company and put it into receivership.

Those creditors who are in a good position to know everything there is to know about the company are obviously satisfied that enough progress is being made that it is safe to leave their money invested and, as it were, “at risk” in the company. I think that is an important signal that those who are most familiar with the company are sticking with the company.

I suggest no further statement needs to be made at this time with regard to the government’s willingness to participate in the necessary package, because we have already indicated both at federal and provincial levels the degree to which we are prepared to participate.

I rib not want to attest to the accuracy of these figures, but going on the publicly talked about figures, which are in the area of $600 to $700 million, the federal and provincial packages would amount to about $150 million. That is the ball park talked about in the discussions. That means the governments are substantially committed to a large portion of the refinancing. I think 25 per cent is a fairly large portion and indicates we will do anything practical and necessary if it appears it is appropriate to do that to save the company.

Mr. Makarchuk: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister indicate at this time whether continuous consultations are going on with the federal government to ensure that, if there is a need to change the government package for Massey-Ferguson, he is prepared to make that change?

Regarding White Motor Corporation, in view of the statements that have been circulated to the effect the American purchaser wishes to cut wages between $3 and $4 an hour, and in view of the fact there are possible Canadian purchasers for that operation, is the minister prepared to commit himself and his department to provide financial assistance to the Canadian purchasers to ensure that White remains in Brantford as a viable operation?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, in the case of both companies, may I say this government has made it quite clear it will entertain any reasonable business proposition that will ensure the work force remains intact in Brantford. The whole purpose of our intervention and assistance proposed in the Massey-Ferguson situation is not to relieve the banks or other creditors of any potential loss, but to ensure that there is employment in Brantford and Toronto in the long term.

To that end, if a different proposition were brought to us by new potential purchasers, we would be open to any sort of proposal brought to us. That does not mean we would agree with a blindfold on to any blind proposal, nor would we give a blank cheque. However, if any good, viable business proposition is brought to us which we think will work, we would be willing to change our earlier undertaking or indication of support.

RADIOACTIVITY AT OHC SUBDIVISION

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of the Environment having to do with the detection of radiation at the Malvern Ontario Housing Corporation subdivision. If he wants his colleague the Minister of Housing to answer it, that will be all right with me.

However, since it seems to be technical, would the minister indicate what steps are going to be taken to correct the situation? It is reported that radiation in excess of 875 millirem per year is generally detectable in the area, while 500 millirem is the standard permitted. In fact, right at ground level, the radiation is in excess of 3,500 millirem per year. Obviously this is a matter of great concern.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I think several will answer this question. First of all, may I tell the honourable member what he perhaps already knows. The Atomic Energy Control Board people are there and, along with our own officials from several ministries, will be doing a thorough review. Depending on that review, it will be addressed in a short period of time by either the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell), if it is a public health matter, or by the Minister of Housing.

The Minister of Housing may want to add something to my comment even now.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, just so we have the most recent story regarding the Malvern situation and the hot spots, may I say that Dr. Eaton, who represents the Atomic Energy Control Board, has been there this morning along with people of the press, radio and TV media, my staff and staff of other ministries as well. To date, they have not detected any high radiation counts in the basements of the homes in the community. They have spotted some very high readings, I am told, in the backyards along the fence lines of six or seven properties.

The man from the AECB indicated in a press conference at two o’clock today on behalf of the AECB that, where difficulties are encountered, he is prepared to recommend and take action to remove the soil, similar to what was done in the Port Hope situation.

2:30 p.m.

My understanding is they are doing a very clear analysis. It is a federal responsibility. The Ministry of the Environment and the other agencies of the province have offered to give the fullest assistance possible.

Mr. Nixon: Malvem and the development of that property has been before the Ministry of Housing and its predecessor for many years. Can the minister explain why his technical experts were not aware of this sooner and why so many people must have been exposed to this radiation over the years of development?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This site came into the possession of both the federal and provincial governments in 1953. Neither government was aware of any contamination on this land, some 1,700 acres. It was in 1972 that the opportunity to construct homes in that community began, and the first home was sold in 1973.

It was not until 1975 that the AECB came into possession of a private firm’s records that demonstrated there could be some contamination on that site. It was as a result of some work on a building on Church Street, which had been used during the war years for the making of instruments where uranium was used in the printing on the dials. The waste from that operation was dumped on a farm that was owned by the president of the company that owned the building on Church Street.

Some spot checks were carried out on this site in 1975, as a result of the information acquired at the time the Church Street site was being renovated.

Mr. Nixon: That would be three or four years after they started to build.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: At that time, no one was aware of the fact there had been any dumping nor of any hot spots even to be detected.

In 1976 the Honourable Alastair Gillespie, who was then the minister reporting for the AECB to the federal House, tabled in the House of Commons a report indicating what were the contaminated spots across this country. Malvern was not one of those spots, as indicated in his report. It was not until this recent situation developed that we were brought on site. Throughout it all, the tests that were taken by AECB back in 1975 did not indicate contamination.

The main contaminated location we believe -- and I have to preface this with “we believe” -- from the reports that I have had so far this morning, was where the building on the farm was used for holding these contaminants and some fertilizer that had some of the contaminant products in it. The other part of the problem is the roadway that was used in getting to and from this building from the main highway.

Dr. Roger Eaton of the AECB is there today and is doing a thorough investigation. I am sure, as he said to our ministry just recently, that he will have a full and complete report. Whatever corrective actions are necessary, he assures us and the property owners in that area, will be taken at the expense of the federal government.

Mr. Isaacs: Supplementary to the Minister of the Environment, Mr. Speaker: The minister has been involved in a major review of industrial waste disposal sites, and it now appears the work that has been done by AECB is inadequate when it comes to identifying sites that contain radioactive waste. Given this, will he extend his testing program to make sure there are no other sites such as Malvern where housing has been erected close to dumps that contain radioactive waste?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I think the question is certainly reasonable, but I think we have all agreed that AECB should be entirely responsible. If the member is asking if I would be prepared to discuss with them a further examination of sites and potential sites, and relay to them any of the information that we get from our in-depth investigation of our sites, indeed I will.

Mr. Sargent: Final supplementary to the Minister of Energy, Mr. Speaker: It is quite apparent that what the minister is doing is not adequate. The AECB are dead down there. In view of the fact that the US Senate is now appropriating $4.1 billion to ferret out radiation toxic sites in America, why does the minister not start a system in Ontario where he will give a blanket reward of $5,000 for anyone who can come forward with a dump that is not known to his people? There must be plenty of them around. Why does he not consider setting up an incentive system to find out exactly where those places are?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think it is necessary to have an incentive system because in the last year we have had many citizens of Ontario come forward and suggest to us where there are potential sites. We have immediately gone to these sites and investigated them and they will be thoroughly investigated in the whole program of our ministry, so I don’t think a payout is necessary. The people are doing it because they understand the importance of it and I think they have been very satisfied with the response of the staff.

NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I note the Premier is back in my riding again today, and I just want to tell him he is welcome any time he wants to come to Ottawa Centre. It is not going to have much impact, but he was speaking there last week --

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Energy, to whom I am sending a questionnaire prepared for the Gallup Poll about nuclear waste disposal.

Is the minister aware that the Gallup Poll questionnaire has been prepared for use in the communities of Renfrew, Cobden, Field, Sturgeon Falls and Dryden, and that the questionnaire is clearly designed to measure the extent of public resistance to nuclear waste disposal and how that resistance can be overcome? Can the minister say who is doing this poll, why that poll is being undertaken, whether the province has been informed the polls being carried out by Ontario Hydro or by the federal government, and will he give an assurance that the results of the poll will be made public?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I assure the honourable member that this is the first time I have seen this material; so, obviously, I welcome the opportunity to review with my officials and with Ontario Hydro any information they might have about this and to report back to the House. I have not seen this before.

Mr. Cassidy: Since the Gallup Poll was most likely carried out by the Canada-Ontario waste management committee, which is concerning itself with nuclear waste disposal in Ontario, can the minister tell me whether there are plans to dump nuclear waste in any of those five sites -- that is, Renfrew, Cobden, Sturgeon Falls, Field or Dryden -- and if there are no such plans, can he explain why it is that a poll clearly directed to that question is being carried out in those areas?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Obviously no decision has been taken with respect to the ultimate disposal of nuclear waste. At the moment, I do not think they are past the flyover or general observation stage.

As regards whoever has commissioned the poll, I go back to my answer to the original question. I will have to get further information, which I will be glad to share with the honourable member once I have consulted with some of the parties named in the questionnaire.

Mr. Speaker: The minister, in effect, has taken it as notice. I will allow one brief supplementary from the member for Halton-Burlington.

Mr. J. Reed: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister apprised or briefed on a regular basis as to the activities of the federal-provincial agreement application? If he is briefed, would he not have been informed that such a poll was being undertaken if, as the leader of the third party says, it was in connection with that federal-provincial agreement?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it is reasonable to assume, if that is the committee that commissioned the poll, that would be information my officials would have, but that is the very point I am now being asked -- whether that particular committee or group has retained Gallup Poll for that purpose. As the Speaker has indicated, I have simply said in response to all three questions that I have not seen this before but I will get the information.

2:40 p.m.

AUTO PRODUCTION

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism. Is the minister aware of the Science Council of Canada’s study of the auto industry which appeared this week and which once again documents that the problem with the Canadian automobile industry is a structural problem and not just a short-term problem of declining sales, and that the Big Four auto makers will not give Canadians a fair share of auto and parts production if they are left on their own, despite the assurances we have had from the Premier?

Can the minister say what new strategy the government intends to follow to ensure the Canadian auto and parts industry does get a fair share, not just of production but also of jobs?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: First, Mr. Speaker, I remind the honourable member that a great number of recommendations have been made in that report, which I should begin by saying we have just received and I am still analysing. From our preliminary analysis, we have found a fair number of things the science council has reported are things we reported to this House, and to other places, quite some time ago.

Second, for some time we have advocated many of the things that report advocates. If the member looks, as I know he has, at the remarks I made to the Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association last April, I talked about moving to an averaging-out formula which would provide some of the flexibility that is required to get our production-to-sales ratios into the kinds of ratios we need that would encourage light car production.

I also said in that speech that it is time the automobile manufacturers began to assemble enough light vehicles in Canada. I also talked of the opportunities for the auto parts industry and indicated one of the shortcomings of the auto pact was the fact it was assembly-oriented and not auto parts-oriented.

In that same speech I said we believe the Canadian value added component of the auto pact should move from 60 per cent or 65 per cent up to 100 per cent. We advocated that over a five-year period the companies should be required to be in a balanced trade situation, which again would deal with the value and the number of cars and would be the kind of situation that would allow us to move to a situation where we were beginning to get a number of lighter, more fuel-efficient vehicles made in this country.

There was also talk in that science council report about the need for new technology in auto parts. I remind the member that the major initiative being taken in Canada in this area is being taken by this government with the auto parts technical centre we are setting up with the Ontario Research Foundation.

As the member goes through the various recommendations the science council has made, I think it will be difficult for him to find one or two instances in which this government has not dealt with in a maximum way possible for a provincial jurisdiction, the kinds of things that science council report advocates is necessary for the restructuring of this industry. In point of fact, assessing our policies and our performance in the things we have done against that single report, we have every right to be very proud of the progress we have made.

Mr. Cassidy: When there are 25,000 auto workers out of work in this province, and the prospects are that is going to continue long after the current decline in the auto industry is turned around, I find it difficult to see how the minister can say that he or the government is proud of what is happening right now.

Will the minister not admit that one of the major problems, and it is documented in the science council report, is the lack of leverage we have in governments in Canada in getting our fair share in auto production and in the auto parts industry? Will he not admit that what we need now is a crown corporation which can spearhead that development, which can engage in research and development, which can enter into joint ventures with the Canadian automobile parts manufacturers to get production here, and which can enter into long-term agreements with the Big Four manufacturers for the supply of technologically advanced parts that are now made almost exclusively in the United States? Is that not the way we have to go to get the leverage we are now lacking?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: First, in terms of pretending that this government or this country is going to be left behind, or is dramatically behind in terms of what is happening in the North American automobile industry, a quick look at the facts, in fairness, would be instructive.

In the automotive industry, for the week of November 3 to November 7, there were 184,700 workers on indefinite layoff in the United States, and 9,700 in Canada. That is in an industry where, as the leader of the New Democratic Party well knows, the ratio is about 10:1. Relatively speaking, in terms of the layoffs and adjustments that both American and Canadian industries are going through, we are substantially better off.

Second, we have never suggested there is not going to be a difficult structural change going on in this country. But in terms of how we are doing so far, in terms of assessing the performance and success we have had in getting some of the Big Three to move and to change some of their auto manufacturing, we have had some successes.

We know about the retooling that is going on in St. Catharines -- I will not take the time of the House to recite it -- in Oshawa and in Windsor to make key parts for the downsized cars. We know the smaller Ford vehicles are being made in St. Thomas, which is a major advance for us. We know that when Chrysler Corporation finally gets around to taking some of its investment steps in this country, it will be putting in a research and development facility -- the kind the member is talking about -- thanks only to the government of Ontario. We know that at that time we will have an auto parts technical centre in place, to help all the members of the auto parts industry.

The only thing the member is adding is the mystical suggestion or belief that if a crown corporation were set up, it would, to use his own words, have more success in negotiating and reaching agreements with the Big Three or the Big Four in the United States than the government and the independent auto parts people in Canada have had. I fail to see how a crown corporation, as opposed to the government of Canada, might have more success than the government or the auto parts manufacturers have to date.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary: Has the minister looked into the concept of using the labour content or the man-hours in the auto industry, both parts and assembly, rather than simply the dollar value of the product? There may be a substantial deficit in man-hours, whereas the dollar value may be in balance.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I think that does point out a lot of the concerns we have. The science council, even in its comprehensive report, could not address that fully. There are a lot of other things that impact. It is not only the kinds of cars being made here; it is the number and quality of the jobs. When one moves to the kind of calculation the member is talking about, I think we would not want to move away from putting some sort of value on the kinds of jobs.

Obviously the research-intensive, highly-skilled jobs are the kinds of jobs we want. We don’t always want to be locked into the situation which the auto pact locked us into. We got a large number -- more than we would have got otherwise -- of lesser- skilled jobs, because they are assembly-oriented. Perhaps we are talking about a lower number of more highly skilled jobs.

We want an adequate mixture of both. I am leery of developing formulae that tend to get us into the kind of 1965 auto pact situation, where we found ourselves in a chronic situation that could not have been anticipated when we struck what seemed to be a reasonable formula at the time.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, is the minister not aware that the report by Mr. MacDonald from the science council indicates there is a shortfall in skilled jobs for Canada; that is, in the United States, 75 per cent of the jobs are skilled and in Canada only 50 per cent are skilled? Furthermore, is he aware that in the investment intentions, there is going to be a $2.6-billion shortfall in this country in the next five years alone which will also exacerbate the problem that the skilled jobs are in auto parts manufacturing as opposed to assembly?

Why does the minister not come to the realization that the private sector has had all these years to turn it around and is simply not going to do it because it is not in the best interests of the automobile firms in the United States? Therefore, he simply must create a crown corporation and get on with the job to ensure that we get our fair share, which, after all, was the intent of the auto pact in the first place.

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the member for Nickel Belt believes, unlike everyone else who studies the industry, that all we need is a crown corporation to solve the problem. There is no point in us taking the rest of the afternoon to decide whether a crown corporation is the answer to our problems.

I just remind the honourable member that at one time his party believed the auto pact should be ended and totally renegotiated. Of course, reality has set in during the past year and his party has come to the realization that what we need are alterations to, not abandonment of, the auto part.

Mr. Laughren: No, no.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Oh, yes; it is true.

Secondly, the honourable member and his party have long been advocating a Canadian car: “Let us build our own car here in Canada.”

Mr. Laughren: Why haven’t you?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The fact is, the MacDonald report clearly disagrees with that and disposes of that as a viable alternative.

SCA PIPELINE

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. Will the minister assure this House that he will consult immediately with officials in New York state to reopen hearings on the SCA Chemical Waste Services pipeline, which is expected to dump 100 million gallons of treated liquid waste into the Niagara River each year? Will the minister recommend against this proposal in the light of the following facts?

Extremely explosive impure TNT has been found on the site which is as explosive now as when it was buried decades ago. CBC radio has reported today that not only are the nuclear wastes in a silo 400 metres from the TNT, but also there is low-level nuclear waste that was shipped in from the nuclear waste site in Nevada in 1948, and that there is a possibility that the mixing of radioactive and hazardous waste could lead to increased leachability and hazards to human health.

This information was contained in a brief submitted to the SCA hearing officer on September 25 of this year, but the Minister of the Environment seems to be unaware of it or to be ignoring it.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, if the question is whether I would do it immediately, I must tell the honourable member I did it yesterday. If I might, I would like to read a copy of the telegram I sent --

Mr. Kerrio: I finally got you moving, eh?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: No.

Mr. Kerrio: It is a little late.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Maybe the member did not hear. I said I did it before the question. May I read it into the record, please?

Mr. Kerrio: Please do.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: “The apparent presence of TNT at the SCA waste site in Lewiston, New York, requires immediate clarification. The existence of such high explosive adjacent to a chemical treatment facility is obviously a matter for grave concern to Ontario. While we have been able to accept the proposed technology for SCA’s operation, this new information creates doubt as to the stability of the site. As this new information relates to US government activity, we urge that immediate clarification be sought by Ottawa from Washington.”

I sent that to the Honourable John Roberts and I have his reply, which I would also like to read into the record. It was sent on his behalf: “On behalf of the Honourable John Roberts, I wish to acknowledge receipt of your minister’s November 19 telegram requesting that immediate clarification be sought with regard to the possible presence of TNT at the SCA site in Lewiston, New York. The minister is aware of your request and will give this matter his prompt attention.”

I have also called the state governor’s office and indicated to him our concern. I have not been able to speak to the governor, but I will be speaking to Commissioner Flacke. This is a matter of very serious concern, and we will take a good deal of time and effort to clarify it with the officials in New York state. It could lead to a whole new dimension on that proposal and we will follow it with a great deal of care.

Mr. Kerrio: Is the minister also aware that toxic wastes dumped by Hooker Chemical have already contaminated portions of the Niagara River and the Niagara Falls, New York, treatment plant -- this is an area other than the Love Canal area -- and that New York state officials claim that chemicals found in the intake system include toxics known to cause or suspected of causing cancer, birth defects and mutations? Those toxics not going into the intake are going down the Niagara River, past the area where residents of Niagara-on-the-Lake get their water supplies. I have some concern about the water supply of Niagara Falls, Ontario.

Reinforcing a point I made last Friday in this House, the US chairman of the International Joint Commission, Robert Sugarman, stated that he could not understand how any government, federal, state or provincial, could recommend the SCA pipeline.

Mr. Speaker: Now that the honourable member has admitted to repetition, we will allow the minister to answer.

Mr. Kerrio: I have just one word left, Mr. Speaker. How can the minister have any credibility if he will not get into this picture and clear it up?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I do not understand how the member opposite could not understand what I just read into the record. It seems a bit strange to me.

Mr. Bradley: It’s a bit strange.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Did the member say his colleague was a bit strange? I have to agree.

I want the member for Niagara Falls to know I raised that very significant issue with the commissioner. I am surprised the member did not understand the significance of that treatment plant some time ago and why it was not working and how it was not working.

Mr. Kerrio: I understood a long time ago. The minister didn’t understand.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: No. With respect, the member ignored that. This is a far more significant, far greater volume. We have made a very forceful presentation to the commissioner, saying we want that done as soon as it is humanly possible to do so.

May I also say I think the member raised an unfair worry for the residents who are getting their drinking supplies. We test that water on a continuous basis. I say to the member that water is safe. We will continue to test it on a continuous basis and we will be the first to set the record on what is or is not in that stream, if it is necessary. We will not deal with conjecture. It is a very important issue and, as I said earlier, we will follow it very carefully.

Mr. Kerrio: I will see to it.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: No, he will not have to. I am ahead of him.

SKF CANADA PLANT CLOSURE

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is for the Minister of Industry and Tourism concerning the SKF closing, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware that for the past few years and until very recently, SKF Canada has been importing the 6200 bearing series from the United States of America, which bearings used to be produced in their entirety and in the hundreds of thousands in the company’s Scarborough plant?

Is the minister also aware that, in addition to this deindustrialization policy of the company, these bearings coming from the US in two parts are stamped in the United States, “Canada SKF,” implying that they are made in Canada, whereas, all the SKF plant that used to produce these does now is to grease them, clamp that on to it and then ship them out as made in Canada?

Does the minister condone this practice, and does he still feel that SKF is closing because of market problems in Ontario, or is it really part of a systematic rationalization of which Canadians are being made victims?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if the honourable member could send those over to me so that I could see them. As well, my seven-year-old’s two-wheeler is missing a couple of bearings and I might be able to use them, provided they are made in Canada.

May I indicate to the member it is not my responsibility, even by the furthest stretches of his imagination, to monitor the production, importation and stamping of products made by SKF or anyone else in the province. I would appreciate if he could send them over anyway.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: In response to me on October 17, the minister gave the reason for the closing as problems with Massey orders and that sort of thing. Is the minister not aware that the annual report of SKF indicates that sales in Canada are up 33 per cent and they include this series, which is one of their largest sales components? Will he not ask the federal department to investigate this to see whether it is illegal? If it is not illegal, it is a questionable practice. Will he not commit himself to investigating this before they try to pull out of Scarborough?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the member will send the hearings over here, I will give one to my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea), who I am sure will send one up to Ottawa, where I am sure they will be pleased to investigate that situation.

3 p.m.

GO TRAIN FIRE

Mr. J. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my constituent the Minister of Transportation and Communications. I am sure the minister is aware of the incident that occurred on the GO Train last night at rush hour when an eastbound train pulled into the Port Credit station on fire.

Can the minister tell us whether his officials have been able to determine if the operators of the train at that time were aware of the fire before they pulled into the station? If so, was the fire under control? If not, was there any danger to the passengers who were disembarking at that particular time from a westbound train?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the information regarding that particular incident. I will look into it and report back as quickly as possible.

Mr. Speaker: It is being taken as notice. Is there anything else the member would like him to look at?

Mr. J. Reed: Yes, please, Mr. Speaker. I just wonder whether the minister will also inquire, if there was knowledge that this fire was burning as the train pulled in, why it would not have been prudent to stop the train outside of that crowded station somewhere in the country at either side.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Certainly I will inquire as to that additional question as well. As I am sure the member knows, the train crews and the signalling and operation of the trains are under the jurisdiction of the CNR. I will have to get a report from them to answer those questions.

DISPOSAL OF PCBS

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Why has his ministry not been at all encouraging with regard to the testing of the diesel engine process for disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls?

Given that the preliminary testing has suggested that the process is 99.998 per cent efficient, does he not believe that it would have been of benefit to the people of Ontario to have the testing completed here so that, if it is proven to be as good as it appears from the preliminary tests supervised by Environment Canada, we might have had future development and marketing of the technology carried out here in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the member is correct. We have done those things required of us with regard to assessing the proposal. We did not spend any particular amount of money on this proposal; however, the federal government did. I am sure the member would not want to see it double-funded; there is no need of that. They have done their assessment of it, as have we.

I want to say also we have spent a lot of money on the destruction of PCBs in other areas. I think it is a clear case of where one government has chosen, with co-operation from the other government, to assess a particular method of destruction of PCBs, while we ourselves have chosen another area in which to do research. I think that is a very responsible way to address what is obviously a significant problem.

Mr. Isaacs: Is the minister aware that the frustration of D and D Disposal Services with regard to his ministry’s failure to assist the project with further tests has resulted in a development contract being signed with a major equipment manufacturer in the United Kingdom, which contract gives that UK company substantial rights for the marketing of the equipment in Europe and across much of the world?

Does he not think it is sad when frustration with his ministry’s officials means that we lose the possibility of a new technology that could make us a world leader in a very important area?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I would almost assume the member was always supportive of these kinds of activities and would not want us to do in-depth assessments of them. We are not prepared to do haphazard approvals or any other kinds of approvals unless we are certain in our own minds they are done properly.

If the member thinks in this instance that the gentleman does not also write letters to suggest that our ministry does an excellent job, I can assure him he is wrong. I will be glad to supply that information. We frequently hear both sides from that particular firm. Sometimes it is very complimentary; sometimes it is not. I can assure him it is more frequently complimentary of our staff than the contrary, and I wish he would understand that point of view. It would be helpful.

Mr. Hall: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: With regard to the answers the minister has given on the subject so far today, do I take it his ministry is not actively pursuing the diesel engine technique; that he is out of that one and is counting on other systems? Alternatively, is he really saying he is continuing to evaluate that method as well as others? He has not left it clear to me.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, fair enough. We are interested in that method, but we are not funding it; we think there are better methods. For instance, the plasma arc is a better technology and, as the member knows, we have spent a lot of money and will continue to spend more on that one.

On a nontechnical assessment of that diesel engine project, I think the member will agree it was a very limited amount of fuel that was put through the machine, and my staff tell me they have real concern about the possibility of this being successful.

However, we are not in a position at this time to say there is no chance of success. If they wish, with federal aid, to pursue that method of destruction of PCBs, and if it is successful, that is great. We think there are better alternatives, and that is where we are putting our money, but only on an assessment basis.

WELLAND CANAL BRIDGE

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Can the minister assure the citizens of the city of Port Colborne that the proposed new third bridge, located in the south end of lock eight of the Welland Canal, will be completed and in operation before the 1981 navigational season opens?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I have no reason to believe that there will be any change in the construction schedule of the third bridge. I will have to doublecheck whether the date the honourable member mentions is the scheduled date and whether the process of building the new bridge by the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority is keeping up with the schedule. I will get a report for the member. I have no information that it is not on schedule.

OWEN SOUND HOSPITAL TRANSFER

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health concerning the outpatient medication program at Owen Sound General and Marine Hospital, particularly the one for psychiatric patients.

Who do I believe? On June 9, 1978, when we raised this matter in the House, the minister agreed there was a problem but they were not terminating that program. If I may quote from page 3327 of Hansard for that day, “By the terms of this agreement a condition exists which states that the hospital shall not delete, remove or modify any existing program unless instructed to do so by the province or unless prior consent is obtained in writing from the province.” Yet the director of psychiatric medicine, in a letter to his staff, dated October 21, says: “Since that time, we have diligently and discreetly continued the phasing out of this program.” Which one of them is lying?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I beg your pardon. Would the member like to repeat that Mr. Speaker? I am sure he would.

Mr. Breaugh: Which one is lying?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, no one on this side is lying. I will look into the matter. In fact, I will be visiting that hospital in about 10 days’ time on another matter, and I will look into that. The agreement is exactly as I described it in June.

Mr. Breaugh: While the minister is there, perhaps he can ask him about this remark as well. The administrator said, “I am entirely prepared to instruct the medical staff to stop the program immediately.” Does that fall in with the agreement which the minister has with that hospital?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The honourable member asked about the agreement. The agreement is exactly as I have described it. If the agreement is being abridged, I will take that up with the chairman of the board, who is responsible for that hospital.

3:10 p.m.

SALES TAX ON UPHOLSTERY

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Revenue. Noting that he acquiesced to the great upholsterers’ lobby in this province yesterday, I believe, I would like to ask him how he justifies the existence of the following regulations. He has now removed sales tax on upholstery orders of more than $250. For orders of $250 and less, sales tax is charged on material only. When one buys material, one should specify the use and should pay sales tax but, according to his own officials, most customers do not specify use and therefore do not pay the tax. This brings into question the whole enforceability of his regulations. If one provides one’s own material, one does not pay tax on the labour. How can the minister possibly sit there with such a screwed-up set of regulations and be happy?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I indicated I was happy about it. However, the member has correctly described the rule under which we have administered the retail sales tax on upholstery. Up until this time; retail sales tax was charged on material up to $250 if they were separately billed.

We have run into this in other areas of administration as well. For example, people who install mufflers, who give a total price rather than a breakdown of the material and the labour, also pay full sales tax. It Is administratively impossible to break it down any other way. We encourage the retailers to break it down so that we can identify the material put in.

To go beyond the $250, what we have said there was that we consider it to be a manufactured piece of goods rather than just a repair job. Therefore, the retail sales tax was charged totally on that article, the same as it would be if one bought a new chesterfield or a new piece of upholstered furniture. Being consistent with that ruling, we have now changed the exemption on sales tax, in the new program that was announced in the budget, so that the same criterion applies. In other words, if there is $250 or more on the cost of an upholstery job, we consider it to be a manufactured product rather than just something that has been repaired; therefore, there will be an exemption on that part of the program.

Mr. Peterson: Because they are almost incomprehensible, even to the ministry, because they are virtually unenforceable, as admitted by his officials, and because they invite dishonesty and cheating by fooling around with the bills, why does the minister not just get rid of retail sales tax on all upholstery jobs and material to make it far less confusing?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: My function is to collect revenues, not to get rid of them. It is pretty obvious that any tax we take --

Mr. Peterson: You just got rid of part of it.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Yes. But we are trying to be consistent with the program that was in place before.

Mr. Peterson: Consistent depending on who lobbies you.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: We will look into it; let us put it that way.

INDIAN SALES TAX EXEMPTION

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Minister of Revenue. Can the minister explain why he did not consult with the chiefs of Ontario before notifying Indian retailers on reserves that, to prevent non-Indians from taking advantage of the Indian sales tax exemption, effective December 1, 1980, treaty Indian store owners on reserves will no longer have the exemption under the Tobacco Tax Act from requirement to obtain sales tax vendors’ permits? Why is he treating Indians this way because of a problem with non-Indians?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Mr. Speaker, this ruling applies to all Ontario citizens and all retailers. To sell cigarettes, one must have a retail vendor’s permit. It costs nothing to have a retail vendor’s permit. All one has to do is apply for it. The reason for that is very simple. Wholesalers are not permitted to sell cigarettes to anyone who does not hold a vendor’s permit.

But I realize there is a problem there, and I have extended the lime of implementation of that. As the member knows, it was to be immediate, and I think we have extended it until December 1 or the end of December -- I forget which.

Mr. Wildman: Is it not correct that, until now, treaty Indians who owned stores on reserves have not had to get sales tax vendors’ permits? If that is the case, why did the minister take this move unilaterally without consulting the Indian organizations? Will he now further extend the deadline from December 1 until April 1 next year, so that he can consult with the Indian organizations to work out a compromise method of dealing with his enforcement problems and not raising the whole question of provincial jurisdiction on federal Indian reserves?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Mr. Speaker, my legal advisers tell me we are within our legal rights to do what we are doing. I have already indicated that we have extended it beyond the first time limit we put on. I will be meeting with my staff either tomorrow morning or the beginning of next week and we will be discussing the very request the honourable member has made. I already have a request from the Union of Ontario Indians in that regard. In fact, I offered to meet with the Union of Ontario Indians and they rejected it.

Mr. Swart: They are in Ottawa now.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: I know; but it seemed a very urgent matter until I suggested we meet. At the moment, they are not ready to meet me. I am prepared to discuss the whole thing with my staff and see whether some accommodation can be made.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: One of the accommodations to be considered would be not to have them registered at all but to allow them to proceed as they have since the grass started blowing -- I mean growing -- and the wind started blowing.

Mr. T. P. Reid: What kind of grass have you been blowing?

Mr. Nixon: Brant county gold. In other words, why does the government not leave them alone?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Mr. Speaker, I think the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk knows very well we are having enforcement problems in the collection of tobacco tax. Some of the problems start at the Indian reservations where purchases are made without paying any tobacco tax. Some of these cigarettes are now getting into areas other than Indian reservations. We are trying to tighten up on this situation, and I hope the members opposite will give me some support in trying to resolve the problem of a possible loss of tax dollars in the amount of millions.

ASSISTIVE DEVICES

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health, and perhaps the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch), in regard to my long-running questions about prosthetic, orthotic and assistive devices for the physically handicapped.

I last asked a question on April 3, 1980, as to what the minister intended to do in regard to providing these devices and whether he would table in the Legislature the report of his eternal committee that has been dragging on for some years as to the provision of these services. What is he going to do about it, particularly with the International Year of Disabled Persons coming up?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the matter is under very active review by the ministers in the Social Development field. I anticipate they will be making a statement of policy on that matter for the beginning of the International Year of Disabled Persons.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The minister will appreciate that I am a little cynical, since I have been hearing this for a couple of years.

How does the government square finding an extra $4.7 million for consultant fees over and above the original contract price, yet having delayed this long in providing any kind of program for these devices in Ontario when they are available in almost every other province in Canada?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: If it were a very simple, straightforward matter without any complications about long-term effects from the use of the devices, their replacement and cost, the member would have a valid complaint.

With respect to the other matter, it is one the member should take up with the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet. It is a one-time matter, whereas what we are talking about here is the development of a program that, once begun, will be ongoing, permanent and extremely expensive.

LIQUID INDUSTRIAL WASTE

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of the Environment and again concerns the Walker Brothers dump site. Is the minister aware that some 75 to 85 additional drums were excavated at that site yesterday and the day before? They found liquid industrial waste in those drums and siphoned out some 1,500 gallons of it to be sent back to the suppliers in the Toronto area.

In particular, is the minister aware that Mr. Grant Mills, who is the director of the environment in that area, acknowledged publicly that this was a violation of Walker Brothers’ certificate. Is the minister now prepared to lay charges against Walker Brothers, and will he take this into consideration in his statement next Tuesday relative to proceeding or not proceeding there with the solidification process?

3:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, the answer to most of those three or four questions is yes and, if the honourable member would like, I will deal with the question he raised the other day. Do I have your permission, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: The honourable member was on the same subject matter, which was the Hydro geological report. It is quite significant he has been asking for that, but I have been absent for the last two days and I really think he does not quite understand the nature of that particular report. I am not being argumentative when I say I think it would make the honourable member jump to some conclusions that are not necessarily valid. That report was to determine the suitability of the stockpile of strip overburden, which would eventually be used for the clay pad and liner for the proposed fixation site.

As part of normal quarrying operations, that area had been receiving the fines. We think at this time that it was calcium carbonate slurry that appeared in the borehole which the honourable member has questioned about.

Surely he also appreciates that there is a full investigation of that particular site and that the matter he raised, along with a myriad of other questions on that particular site, will be dealt with in the full environmental assessment hearing that is proposed.

I think that is a more appropriate time to come with all the information on not only the question the honourable member raised but also what is in those particular materials, which of course must be answered in detail. We think at this time it is calcium slurry, but that will be determined at a later date.

Mr. Swart: Supplementary to that --

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

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. Cureatz from the standing committee on general government reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amount and to defray the expenses of the office of the Ombudsman be granted Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981:

Office of the Ombudsman program, $4,750,000.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr. Philip from the standing committee on administration of justice presented the following report:

Your committee met on Wednesday, November 19, 1980, to consider the annual report of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations for the year ending March 31, 1980, referred to the committee on Tuesday, November 18, 1980, on a petition of 20 members pursuant to standing order 33(b).

Your committee adopted a motion requiring the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea) to produce to the committee certain documents with respect to Carlo Montemurro and his related companies. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations failed to produce the documents which your committee requested.

Your committee therefore requests that the House authorize Mr. Speaker to issue his warrant, as provided in section 35 of the Legislative Assembly Act, requiring the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to produce to the standing committee on administration of justice all correspondence, interdepartmental memoranda, memoranda to file, application forms, notes, files and other such documents that are in the possession of any agency, board, commission, registry, branch or division of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations relating to Carlo Montemurro and his related companies, particularly C and M Financial Consultants Limited, Re-Mor Investment Management Corporation, Canadian Metal Recycling Labs and Astra Trust Company.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, before moving the adjournment of the debate in accordance with standing order 30(c), I would like, by way of a brief statement, to point out to you and to members of the House that this is a matter considered to be of the utmost importance by the standing committee on administration of justice.

Your committee has been charged with the responsibility to inquire into the activities of Carlo Montemurro and his related companies, particularly C and M Financial Consultants Limited, Re-Mor Investment Management Corporation, Canadian Metal Recycling Labs and Astra Trust Company. To do this, our committee requested by way of motion that the minister produce certain documents as without these documents the work of the committee would be frustrated. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea) has failed to produce the documents in the time stipulated by the committee.

Today I received a letter from him stating it was his understanding that I would not make a report in the House until the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) had made a representation to the committee this afternoon. This is simply not the case, as any reading of the transcripts of yesterday’s justice committee deliberations will clearly show. I pointed out to the minister, through a call to his office at approximately 12:02 p.m. today, that this was not the case. It is clear to me and to other members of the committee that the minister was requested to produce the documents by 11:10 a.m.

I am mindful of the importance of the constitutional debate this evening and of private members’ public business this afternoon. However, at a House leaders’ meeting today, my leader sought a commitment from the government House leader (Mr. Wells) to have this matter debated and voted on following routine proceedings tomorrow. The government House leader would give no such guarantee.

This is an urgent matter that demands immediate attention. Standing order 30(c) requires the following: “After moving the adoption of a report, the chairman may make a brief statement and then shall adjourn the debate.” Technically, therefore, I have no recourse but to follow the procedure set out. I would, however, ask members of the assembly to join me in voting against this motion of adjournment.

My colleagues and I realize that if the debate is adjourned today we may not have an opportunity to deal with this important matter in this House before adjournment. I feel the legitimate inquiry by the standing committee on administration of justice, of which I am the chairman, must not be stifled. The public has the right to know.

Now, as is my responsibility under standing order 30(c), I do hereby move the adjournment of the debate.

3:30 p.m.

5:35 p.m.

The House divided on Mr. Philip’s motion for the adjournment of the debate, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 48; nays 56.

Mr. Speaker: The question now before the House is the motion for adoption of the report of the justice committee. Shall the motion carry?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Does anyone wish to speak to the motion?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a couple of points on the record at this time. The real vote that has just gone on, of course, has not been on the substance of that motion or that report. We have really established a new interpretation at this time of what many of us thought were the rules of this House.

We had always believed, and it certainly is the interpretation I have received from people on the various committees who wrote these rules, that the intent was that reports from committees that contained substantive motions should be introduced with short remarks from the chairman of that committee and then adjourned. The understanding was that they would be adjourned.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with you that the rule says they shall be adjourned, and of course the way that is done is through a motion of adjournment, but it has always been my understanding that this would be a unanimously agreed adjournment.

I draw the House’s attention to a report on October 6 moved by the member for Humber (Mr. MacBeth) from the select committee on constitutional reform. He moved the report be adopted when it came in here. We had agreement at that time of all the parties in this House to adopt that report and you said, Mr. Speaker, “I will hear the member for Humber, but I must remind the honourable member that a routine motion like that is usually best handled by a simple motion by the government House leader.” That was the first point.

“If you are asking for us to approve what is contained in a committee report, the normal procedure is for the chairman to move the adjournment of the debate and for it to be recorded for debate on a later occasion.

“You do cause the chair some difficulty. However, I will hear what you have to say, and if we have the unanimous consent of the House to put the adoption of that report at this time, I will do so, but you know that we ran into considerable difficulty on a previous occasion.”

I draw the attention of the House to this, Mr. Speaker, because --

Mr. Sargent: Why did you not say this before the vote?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would have said this if I had had the opportunity. I just want to put very clearly on the record that our vote on this particular matter has nothing to do with the substance of this matter or any of those things concerned with this particular matter. What we have always understood in this House is that reports would be adjourned so they could be studied by the House. The reason for that I would submit is that this report contains a substantive motion.

Rule 37(a) says a substantive motion is a number of things and a motion for returns. This, in effect, is a kind of motion for returns. If this had been a substantive motion, it could not be moved in this House without notice. In effect, we are now being asked to vote on a motion from a committee without notice of the members of the House. It is a motion, I suggest, that most members, except those on the committee, do not even have in their hands.

What I am saying is, it is very difficult for the members of the House to speak in a debate and to vote on a motion at this time without even having that motion before them. In fact, that defeats the essence and substance of the motion on substantive motions.

5:40 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must remind the government House leader that there was an opportunity before I put the question to the House for the adjournment of the debate. I heard no one who wanted to express an opinion on the validity of the motion that was before the House. As members well know, any motion to adjourn the debate or to adjourn the House is not debatable.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: It’s not debatable.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. A motion to adjourn the debate or to adjourn the House is clearly not debatable. If the government House leader wanted to get up on a point of order prior to my putting the question, he had an opportunity to do so. The question that is before the House now is whether the House wants to adopt the committee report. I recognize the minister and he has the floor, but he will have to speak to the substance of the motion, which is whether the House wishes to adopt the report of the committee.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I certainly respect what you say. I understand that you did not see me. I tried to get up before the vote was put.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Wells: My friends can talk like that. I even had the courtesy to send the Speaker the reference I quoted from before. I thought Mr. Speaker himself might interrupt these proceedings to remind the House again of the rule. However, I recognize it is not his duty to do that. I also recognize that once a motion to adjourn is put it is not debatable and it must be voted upon. The point is, Mr. Speaker, I suggest either you, the House leaders or the standing committee on procedural affairs should look at this, because we have now changed what was a pretty clear understanding --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I really think my friend the House leader of the New Democratic Party is wrong. We have changed and we are now in another no man’s land as far as committee reports are concerned. That is the essence of my argument on this particular point about why this report should not be adopted today. The House is being asked to adopt a report which is a substantive motion that is not even in the hands of the members of this House to debate. I submit that is wrong, and the rules substantiate that; they say substantive motions must have notice given. Therefore, I would suggest the members should not pass this motion,

Let me also say the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) indicated I said we would not debate this tomorrow morning. That is quite correct from the House leaders’ meeting. But he left the impression that, if this report were adjourned, it would never be debated again in this session of the House. That is completely erroneous. That impression was never left. The record we have of debating these reports is a good one. We have always debated all of them. Even Nakina will be debated in due course, I am sure.

Speaking on the substance of this and further substantiating the point I have made -- and I want to underline that -- the vote we have just taken was a vote to uphold what we think are the rules of this House and the way this House should be administered, and not on the substance of this.

On the substance of the motion and the matter, the Attorney General indicated to the standing committee on administration of justice committee that he would appear this afternoon and fully discuss this matter.

This is a matter of great concern. It is a matter involving civil rights and the rights of everyone. It may be construed to involve only those who have been charged, but it is basically a matter that involves the rights of everyone in this province, our whole interpretation of the sub judice rule in this House and many other things.

We are being asked to pass a report and do something affecting such fundamental things in this province without prior notice or in any way knowing what is in this motion, without the Attorney General having been given an opportunity to appear fully before the justice committee. The Attorney General came this afternoon not expecting to sit here and wait for a vote but to be down in the committee discussing this important matter. That has been frustrated.

I am willing to suggest a compromise in this situation. Having voted that we are going to debate this now, this House should debate it now. But considering the import of what this motion deals with, considering the members have not had a full chance to discuss it, considering the Attorney General is ready, willing and wants to go before the justice committee and discuss the matter, after discussion in this House we should adjourn adoption of the report asking for a warrant from you until the Attorney General has had an opportunity to discuss the matter fully before the justice committee. Then I will give assurances to this House that, as government House leader, I will call the matter again and bring it to a vote at that time. If my friends are not willing to accept that procedure, I suggest we will have to vote against the adoption of this report.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, there was only one point I particularly wished to raise in this debate this afternoon, and that is with respect to the events of yesterday. The committee, in its wisdom, passed a motion about 11 o’clock yesterday morning dealing with this particular matter. The Attorney General was kind enough -- and I think that is the proper word to use -- to appear with the Deputy Attorney General and a law officer at a few moments after one o’clock in the afternoon. We were able to hear the Attorney General explain at some length his particular concerns in this matter.

It was somewhat difficult to proceed, however, because there was not one Conservative member of the committee present, and there were only three other opposition members besides the chairman -- it being very late in the afternoon, and the Attorney General’s presence being, I think, unexpected at that point.

However, having made its motion, and there being no alternative, without a quorum, to deal otherwise with the matter, the committee was bound by the earlier ruling, which is why the motion, I believe it is fair to say, was put today by the chairman of the committee; he had no alternative but to bring before the House, at the earliest opportunity, the motion that had been passed.

Perhaps, if the attendance had been otherwise, the matter possibly could have been reversed at that point and the law officers of the crown could have been heard this afternoon, as I had suggested would have been a way to resolve the problem. However, in the absence of members of the committee, virtually nothing else could be done but to proceed in this fashion, with the hope that, if the Attorney General and his advisers were able to appear before the committee, possibly some other report would come forward from the committee that might reverse a step that had otherwise been made. But I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that we had no alternative at that point but to reverse the earlier ruling. This is part of the difficulty in which we find ourselves.

5:50 p.m.

Interjections.

Mr. Breithaupt: The proposal having been made, if there had been one Tory present in the committee, we might have got somewhere. There was not one Tory present; so, as a result, we are here this afternoon and the Attorney General has the opportunity to speak to this issue. I wanted to put that matter before the Speaker so that we would know why we got into this circumstance, and I hope the Attorney General will speak to the report.

Hon. Mr. Pope: What a bunch of garbage. Adjourn the debate now and go downstairs.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Every member should have an opportunity to be heard.

Mr. Foulds: Let the Attorney General speak now.

Interjections.

Mr. Mattel: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon at the House leaders’ meeting, I volunteered to have the report debated tomorrow, which would have allowed the Attorney General to be present at the committee downstairs this afternoon. I have to remind the House that it was the government House leader who did not want to do it that way. Now we are into a hassle.

Interjections.

Mr. Mattel: Do not barrack; that is factual.

In fact, I even volunteered to postpone it until Monday, if need be. We were not happy to do that. The House leader for the Liberals indicated he would prefer to do it sooner, but we were prepared to debate it tomorrow. If the government House leader and his party chose not to go that route and decided they wanted to resolve it this afternoon, that is their decision. But we were prepared to accommodate the Attorney General and allow him to appear this afternoon and then debate the report tomorrow. If I heard the government House leader correctly, that is what he just volunteered to do. We would not have gone through this hassle if he had accepted my proposal this afternoon.

If I could turn for a moment to the rules that my friend spoke to, the rule was not brought into the House for the reason he suggested. The government House leader, who continuously had to adjourn debate when reports were presented, did not want to be in the untenable position of appearing to be the person who put off all debates on all reports. So the new ruling was devised whereby the chairman of a committee would move the adjournment of the debate, after having an opportunity to make a few remarks, thus giving members of the House an opportunity to review the content of any given report. That is how that rule came about.

I think we have a problem yet. That is, unless there is agreement on a report, there is no guarantee that we can get a report back to the House for discussion. Up until this time it has worked well, save for one report which we are having a bit of a problem on. I think my friends from the Liberal Party and I are nervous about that one because we have attempted to have it brought forward on a number of occasions and there has been a little bit of reluctance --

Mr. Nixon: Nakina?

Mr. Mattel: The Nakina one.

There is no mechanism to get it back to the House. If we are going to look at a mechanism that should be devised, once a report is tabled there should be a mechanism that says under certain circumstances or after an extended period of time this report must be called. In that way one has the assurance that a report is going to get back before the Legislature. It now rests totally with the government as to whether a report comes back. That is our concern with this one. If it had been adjourned this afternoon, there is no guarantee that we could ever get it back to be debated.

So except for one case, there has been no problem with that. But there is still not a real way of resolving it. Maybe that is the thing, in terms of the rules, that should be reviewed. If there were a time limit under which it must come back to the Legislature for debate, we would get ourselves out of this.

We had an easier way today -- which I proposed and the government did not accept -- and that was to debate it tomorrow morning.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give some additional background in relation to this motion that is before the House, if I may. Certainly, in talking with a number of the members both from this side of the Legislature and across the aisle, it is very clear that many are not yet aware of the issues involved in this matter.

First of all, I would like to turn to the resolution that was passed by the committee because, as my House leader pointed out, this has not been distributed. With respect and not in any sense of criticism, I believe the majority of members are not aware of what this issue is really all about. I will quote from the proceedings the substance of the issue before us:

“Mr. Bradley moved that all materials relating to Carlo Montemurro and his related companies, particularly C and M Financial Consultants Limited, Re-Mor Investment Management Corporation, Canadian Metal Recycling Labs and Astra Trust Company, be produced to the committee, such materials to include all correspondence, interdepartmental memoranda, memoranda to file, application forms, notes, files and such other documents that are in the possession of any branch, board, agency, commission, registry or division of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.”

This motion, which was duly carried at some point by the committee, was made known to law officers of the crown and senior law officers of the Ministry of the Attorney General relatively shortly thereafter. The law officers of the crown were in possession of many of these documents as they pertained not only to an ongoing criminal investigation but also to criminal charges that had been laid. In relation to these criminal charges, as I will be discussing in a moment or two, there is actually a preliminary hearing scheduled to commence on Monday.

The law officers of the crown, having heard and being concerned about the proper administration of justice in this province and the extent to which this was going to firstly prejudice, undermine and potentially seriously interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation, and secondly, at the very least if not in fact, interfere with the proceedings that were before the court, brought it to my attention. As soon as I could, I attended --

Mr. S. Smith: Criminal?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The preliminary hearing on the criminal charges, yes. I will give more details of that in a moment. As soon as this was brought to my attention, I decided I should go forthwith to the committee -- which I did, as has already been noted by the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt), with the Deputy Attorney General and Mr. Howard Morton, the director of the crown law office, criminal division -- to inform the members of the committee as fully and completely as we could of the issues involved.

You have been asked, sir, to issue a warrant. In the final analysis it is your discretion that will be applicable, because section 35 of the Legislative Assembly Act states that upon request you may issue such a warrant. I felt the members of the committee were entitled to all the relevant information we could divulge without ourselves interfering with the ongoing criminal investigation.

I want to stress at the outset that I was personally only familiar with the general details with respect to the nature of the investigation. Yesterday I appeared before the committee and I said in part that representations had been made in relation to the notices that have been issued and served with respect to civil proceedings. I do not want to dwell too long on those.

6 p.m.

My senior law officers of the crown who have been advising the Ontario Provincial Police, particularly with respect to the criminal investigation, are very concerned about the Speaker’s warrant in relation to the integrity of the ongoing investigation. In our view, the investigation could be seriously prejudiced by any issuance of a Speaker’s warrant.

I was going to ask Mr. Howard Morton, who I have already introduced, to address members in relation to this issue, because he is more familiar with the details of the investigation than I am. Given the fact that there were a number of members of the committee who had voted on the original motion who were then present, r was quite prepared to have Mr. Morton address the committee at that time or, at the discretion of the chairman and the members of the committee, when there was, in the words of the member for Kitchener, “a larger audience.”

I thought it was agreed. I do not want to get preoccupied with what was agreed, but it was my understanding --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to remind the Attorney General we have reached the time when we usually break for the dinner hour. Would this be a convenient point for him to break off his remarks and continue at eight?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes, it would, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I want to remind the House and the government House leader that the provisions of standing order 30 were not breached this afternoon. The chairman who brought the report in moved the adjournment of the debate. That was quite in order. He did move the adjournment of the debate. It was taken out of my hands by the House, which is supreme and which decided it did not want the debate to adjourn.

I want the government House leader to differentiate between this instance this afternoon and the one he quoted covering the member for Humber, who is the chairman of the select committee on constitutional reform. There is a distinct difference.

The House recessed at 6:05 p.m.