Hansard Transcripts 1981-Nov-26 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Hon. F. S. Miller: As members know, Mr. Speaker, the federal Minister of Finance met with his provincial counterparts in Halifax this past Monday and Tuesday to discuss the federal budget proposals relating to equalization on the established programs financing arrangement. I wish to report briefly on the course of those discussions.

Understandably, much of our conversation focused on the numbers contained in the federal budget. To his credit, Mr. MacEachen acknowledged even before our meeting began that his budget had erroneously understated the net impact of his proposals on the provinces by some $650 million over the next five years. In the budget, Ontario had been shown with a net gain of $16.4 million in 1982-83. This has now been corrected by him to a net loss of $42.1 million. In the budget, our five-year loss had been calculated at $1,127,000,000; this has now been revised to $1,237,000,000. In short, we are substantially worse off than we thought we were on budget night.

Moreover, there are continuing problems with the numbers having to do with the underlying economic assumptions, cash flow arrangements and policy responses of those provinces that do not have tax collection agreements with the federal government. Federal and provincial officials accordingly have been instructed to meet before the next ministers' meeting to see if some of these statistical problems can be further resolved.

Make no mistake about it, the federal government, having levered the provinces into major spending programs, is now unilaterally going back on its earlier assurances and commitments of support. All provinces are thus forced to make major program cuts in health and education or will be required to raise significant new revenues. All provinces protested the federal government's intention of eliminating the 1977 revenue guarantee compensation. They are also objecting to Ottawa's two-stage plan of cutting transfers starting in 1982-83 while postponing discussions on federal program standards and conditions that may impose even higher costs on the provinces. The federal minister was criticized for offering "tax offsets" that are uncertain, short-term and, in fact, not benefits at all but simply federally imposed tax increases on provincial taxpayers.

I covered most of these arguments in my own opening statement to the meeting, copies of which were distributed to all members earlier in the week. I invite those wishing an even fuller statement of the Ontario position to reread my 1980 and 1981 budget papers on the fiscal arrangements.

The upshot of the meeting was that provinces unanimously requested a one-year delay in the revenue guarantee cuts, with a possible floor provision to protect the equalization receiving provinces. This would allow comprehensive and co-ordinated discussions on both financing and program-related issues. The federal government rejected such a delay, arguing that restraint was a major imperative that had to extend to the provincial transfers.

The discussions of the new equalization formula centred largely on the implications of moving to an Ontario standard. We also discussed, somewhat inconclusively, Quebec's argument that equalization constitutes a disincentive for poor provinces to foster economic growth in their own regions.

Our meeting concluded with an agreement to convene again in Toronto on December 14 and 15.

I would be remiss in this report if I failed to comment on what the Prime Minister was saying simultaneously to audiences at the very opposite side of the country. On Tuesday night, in Vancouver, Mr. Trudeau accused provinces of having spendthrift policies and of taking a free ride on the federal government. He implied that provinces are greedy and are solely interested in more and more federal dollars. This is not the case. Since the late 1960s, when we were forced into medicare by the federal government, provinces have been fighting a continuous battle to merely hold on to what we have.

We had to oppose federal ceilings on post- secondary education and health care. We sustained a major loss when the federal government indexed the income tax. We lost some 60 per cent of the crucial revenue guarantee in 1977. We just recently lost the $250-million community services contribution program. And this year we are fighting to prevent the federal government from knocking off $818 million in established programs financing transfers for the 1982-83 fiscal year across Canada.

In fairness, the federal government has enriched a number of programs, but provinces have nearly always been left with great uncertainty as to how long this will last. One should not forget that EPF, supposedly a long-term arrangement, was a major, albeit unsuccessful, target for federal restraint in the very next year, with the federal government proposing at that time to reduce the gross national expenditure escalator by two percentage points.

In short, the record on fiscal arrangements is clear, and, contrary to federal statements, it has been a record of gradual federal retrenchment and breach of faith. Ontario supports the Prime Minister's crusade for national unity and a strengthened federal role in economic nation- building, but we find it exceedingly discouraging that he chooses to build his case by making such unfounded attacks on the provinces.

I also find most objectionable the absurd and repeated contentions that the federal government picks up disproportionately high shares of the provinces' education costs. We have gone through this numbers game many times before, and the one thing that is certain is that these high federal shares are, to put it bluntly, wrong.

As reported in the Premiers' Victoria communiqué of August 1981, a detailed study of provincial spending on health and post-secondary education clearly indicates that federal transfers towards these functions still account for less than 50 per cent of the cost. Also, I was pleased to note that both the Hall commission and the parliamentary task force on federal-provincial fiscal arrangements lent support to this provincial interpretation of the data.

If there are to be productive federal-provincial discussions in December and subsequent months, this deliberate baiting of the provinces and this deliberate confusion of the numbers has to stop. As I said to the federal Minister of Finance this week in Halifax: "In the past, this country has been made to work through co-operation and consultation. We are anxious that this continue. The threatened federal unilateral action on EPF and surrounding issues is the most significant threat to federal-provincial trust and confidence that I have seen." All 10 provinces urged the federal government to reopen the door to meaningful negotiations on these issues.

NIAGARA RIVER POLLUTION

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the honourable members' attention and update them on the ministry's ongoing activities and outline some new initiatives regarding Ontario's water quality and, most specifically, the future of the Niagara River.

It was just two weeks ago that I tabled the second environmental baseline report on the Niagara. It was compiled by my ministry and Environment Canada under the Canada-Ontario agreement on Great Lakes water quality. With reference to drinking water, the report concluded that water supplies from the river met existing and proposed Canadian and Ontario objectives for drinking water quality. In addition, the report said that for suggested limits of other organics currently not included in these objectives, the water was also acceptable.

However, as I noted at the time, the report raised concerns about the potential long-term effects of loadings of metals and organic contaminants. The Niagara River, as the report pointed out, is a continuous source of these compounds to Lake Ontario. The great majority of these contaminants originate from sources on the American side of the river.

The public is quite understandably concerned about the future of its drinking water and, indeed, the river itself. Of course, the only effective answer is to continue efforts to reduce, control and treat any effluents and, wherever possible, to eliminate contaminants that find their way into the river.

2:10 p.m.

Last week, the International Joint Commission was able to point with some pride to the accomplishments that Canada and the United States have achieved in phosphorus controls in the Great Lakes over the past decade. Ontario has played a key role in this achievement, and we have invested substantial resources.

I would like to see that same kind of achievement record for the problems we currently face with chemical contaminants. As many members know, my ministry has already undertaken a number of initiatives in this area designed to restore and preserve the Niagara River's quality and to ensure that the health of Ontario residents is protected.

Significant steps have been taken to deal with our own sources. There are a total of 19 municipal and industrial sources of discharge from the Canadian side of the river. All of these discharges are treated to meet our effluent requirements or are under control programs designed to bring them to acceptable levels. In addition, we have ensured that any abandoned waste sites in Ontario do not become sources of contamination to this water course.

The environmental baseline report is also part of our comprehensive program; so are increased monitoring, improvements in our laboratory facilities and research into better water treatment technology. We have also supplied leadership and support for a new toxicology centre in Ontario. This centre, designed as a combined industry, government and academic effort, will provide the most up-to-date scientific assessments of the long-term effects of chemical contaminants. It will also serve as a training and research institution. I have written to the federal environment and health ministers, requesting their support for this very worthwhile and essential endeavour.

I have also urged the Minister of the Environment, the Honourable John Roberts, to take whatever steps may be needed to improve Canadian drinking water quality guidelines where necessary. My letter suggests that an approach similar to that taken under the Food and Drug Act might be appropriate. This would mean that studies on effects would have to be undertaken before the release of any new chemicals into the Canadian market.

To reflect our newly acquired analytical capability to test chemical contaminants in parts per trillion, Ontario is constantly reviewing our drinking water standards. Ontario has also been one of the major participants in the Niagara River Toxics Committee, composed of representatives from our ministry, New York and both federal governments. It was assembled to assess discharges into the river and to devise effective abatement strategies.

With all the available evidence about the effluents that are already going into the river, it is difficult to accept the fact that SCA Chemical Waste Services, a company that previously used this river to discharge treated effluent, should now be seeking approval to relax its treatment standards.

The ministry became aware that SCA was considering this request during the summer. In a letter to the Department of Environmental Conservation, my deputy minister at that time strongly objected to any possibility of relaxing treatment standards for the company.

However, SCA subsequently submitted an application requesting that the DEC consider a relaxation of 30 effluent parameters in what is known as its SPDES permit, or, to be more specific, the state pollution discharge elimination system permit. A total of 67 standards had been stipulated in its first permit to discharge. The first hearing is to be held December 1 in Youngstown, New York.

There are essentially four significant steps I wish to announce today in reference to the SCA application and the Niagara River.

First, since the SCA request has proceeded to the hearing stage, I have decided that Ontario will intervene on December 1 to voice our concerns.

When SCA first made its proposal to discharge treated effluent into the river last year, ministry staff made a complete assessment of the technology to be used. Of course, this government supports the concept of liquid waste treatment, but we wished to assure ourselves and Ontario residents that adequate safeguards would be observed and that the standards would be strictly enforced.

On technical merits, the proposal was considered acceptable. But to ensure compliance our staff, in co-operation with the federal government, monitored the river's quality during the discharge procedure. Preliminary results indicated that the original standards, as expected, were stringent enough to ensure that drinking water quality was protected. However, Ontario cannot support a relaxation in these standards; so the ministry will be present to voice its position at the initial hearings.

The second initiative is to appoint a senior ministry staff person to co-ordinate our Niagara River activities. This person will also have the mandate to assemble a team of technical experts. Their efforts, which will be devoted exclusively to the Niagara River, will be in addition to the ongoing activities conducted by the staff in our west-central regional offices.

Over the next several months, New York state's Department of Environmental Conservation will be reviewing the SPDES permits for several industries that discharge into the river, including the Niagara Falls sewage treatment plant. In addition, negotiations are under way to clean up several abandoned waste sites that could impact on the river.

One of the first responsibilities of the ministry co-ordinator will be to assemble detailed effluent data in connection with the permits that will be coming before the DEC for reappraisal over the next several months.

Third, I have instructed that this team, in conjunction with the ministry's technical and legal staff, assess the collected data. They will determine what impact, if any, the proposed discharges will have on the river. Based on this assessment, the ministry will intervene where we feel there will be a negative impact on the river's water quality or where more stringent abatement actions are required.

Because of the potential scope of this task, I have written to the Honourable John Roberts, urging that he join us in our efforts.

Finally, to ensure everything possible is done to eliminate Ontario's contribution to the problem, the ministry will review all existing control programs and orders on companies that discharge into the river from the Canadian side. Where possible, effluent requirements will be tightened and timetables for completion accelerated. Because of the work load this will entail, we plan to increase the staff in our regional office by two and to provide additional funds. These resources are in addition to those that are being provided for the special team.

Canada and the United States have shown their ability to jointly resolve transboundary water pollution problems in the past. I hope we can continue that practice with the Niagara River. In the interim, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment will continue to take whatever steps are necessary to protect our environment and the health of our residents. I will keep the House informed of the results of these activities.

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN COLLECTION

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, later today, I will be introducing legislation to amend the McMichael Canadian Collection Act, 1972.

Given the tremendous public interest in the collection during the last two weeks, much of it, I regret to say, fuelled by a great deal of misinformation, I think it would be useful here to briefly review the history of the McMichael Canadian Collection as a publicly owned institution.

In 1965, Mr. and Mrs. Robert McMichael made a magnificent gift of their home, land and collection of Canadian art to the people of Ontario. This gift was made to the crown through an agreement among the McMichaels, the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the government of Ontario.

The agreement makes it very clear that the McMichaels wanted their collection "preserved, maintained and developed for the public benefit" and that the crown was the appropriate authority for ensuring that these wishes were met.

The crown represented all the people and the public benefit. The crown had the resources to do the job. The crown, acting for all the people of the province was, of course, delighted to play a part in the preservation and development of a unique, and uniquely Canadian, enterprise.

It accepted the McMichaels' singular gesture; and, of fundamental importance, it accepted along with the collection the complete responsibility for it as well as important obligations concerning the McMichaels themselves.

The agreement provided that the crown's agent in ultimately managing and controlling the collection would be a five-member advisory committee composed of the McMichaels, two others and a chairman to be appointed by the four.

It also provided that the McMichaels would have the right to live at the collection as unpaid curators, the right to be buried there, the right to build buildings there at their own expense and approved by the committee, the right to provide advice to the committee and the right to consent to the sale of works of art that they themselves had donated.

Between 1965 and 1972, the crown not only met its commitments but also went beyond them. In terms of the development of the site, for instance, three additions were built to the original McMichael building, entirely and properly at public expense.

In the same time span, the collection itself more than doubled in size to about 360 works of art, many of them donated by Canadians who were anxious to join the McMichaels in the effort to build a uniquely Canadian collection in a uniquely Canadian setting.

By 1972, it was clear that the collection had grown into a major public institution that required the creation of a corporation for its management in the public interest.

Consequently, in late 1972, this House passed An Act to establish the McMichael Canadian Collection. In becoming the expression of the Legislative Assembly's will regarding the existence and operation of the collection as a public institution, the act carried forward the intent of the 1965 agreement with very slight modifications. At no time did Mr. McMichael disagree with the introduction and passage of the 1972 act.

2:20 p.m.

The act prescribed that the original McMichael building and land be preserved as a permanent site for a public gallery and that the art acquisitions of the collection be consistent with its general character.

The act also embraced the personal guarantees for the McMichaels that were specified in the 1965 agreement. In fact, it enhanced those undertakings. It made Robert and Signe McMichael trustees for life. It entitled them to live at the collection for life and to be buried there. Beyond that, and unlike the 1965 agreement, it stipulated that Robert McMichael would be a director of the collection and provided that a salary would be paid to him.

In recognition of the collection's existence as a public institution and its development through public support, both directly and via government, the act properly stipulated that the board of trustees would be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. The board would consist of between five and nine members. In the words of the act, "The affairs of the corporation shall be under the management and control of the board, and the board has all the powers necessary or convenient to perform its duties or to achieve the objects of the corporation."

In other words, the board, of which the McMichaels are members for life, is the ultimately responsible and accountable authority for the affairs of the collection.

That is the basic background that brings us to today and the amending bill I will be introducing later on. The bill will do four things. First, it will enshrine in statute for the first time a requirement that the collection focus on art by the Group of Seven and on native Canadian art. In the very words of the 1965 agreement, it will also allow for the acquisition and display of work by "other artists who have made contributions to the development of Canadian art."

Second, the amending bill will spell out that works of art given to the collection cannot be sold without the donor's consent.

Third, it will create a new position of founder director-emeritus, provide a salary for it and stipulate that Robert McMichael shall occupy it.

Fourth, it will allow the collection to use its gift shop revenues for general purposes.

Allegations have been made that the bill I will bring forward today would dismantle the collection by allowing its paintings to be sold. In fact, the bill will do the very opposite.

Many people seem to have forgotten that under the present act paintings cannot be sold if an agreement between the collection and the donor prohibits such a sale. There have been occasions on which works have been sold. In each case the money has gone to a special fund that can be used only to purchase new art work.

When he was director, Mr. McMichael himself found this to be a very helpful provision, for he added to the art purchase fund by selling more than 100 works, including pieces by A. J. Casson, Lawren Harris, A. Y. Jackson, Arthur Lismer and Fred Varley.

Under the new bill, sales of art works will be even more limited, because they will always require the consent of the donor or, after his death, the consent of his representative unless an agreement stipulated otherwise.

The essential character of the collection will be further protected by a section specifying that the focus of the collection is the work of the Group of Seven, three of their contemporaries, the indigenous people of Canada and other artists who have made contributions to the development of Canadian art.

This amendment sets out the permissible content of the collection much more specifically than does the 1972 act and, as such, provides even greater protection for the integrity of the collection.

There have also been allegations that this government intended to break its 1965 agreement with the McMichaels. As I told this House seven days ago, that is simply not the case. It is crucial to note that in the 1972 act the intent and all the essential provisions of the 1965 agreement were restated, as the minister of the day, Mr. McNie, pointed out.

On November 13, 1981, however, counsel for Mr. and Mrs. McMichael formally presented a submission that, in effect, seeks for the McMichaels personal veto powers over the collection -- powers they have never had. Let me quote from the submission:

"The McMichaels have no desire to participate in or interfere with the day-to-day business aspects of the operation ... but they are strongly of the opinion that they should have control over the aesthetic aspects of the operation as contemplated by the 1965 agreement.

"In their submission, their right to approve or disapprove new additions to the collection, the disposal of any items presently in the collection and the manner of presentation of the works of art should be stated clearly in the new legislation.

"In addition, their right to approve or disapprove any modifications of the grounds and buildings from an aesthetic standpoint -- subject, of course, to the approval of the government regulatory bodies like the fire marshal -- should be clearly acknowledged in the new legislation."

Mr. Smith: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The minister has just quoted from a document submitted on behalf of the McMichaels by a lawyer, Mr. Robinette. He has, however, taken one paragraph and failed to read the next paragraph; as a consequence of that behaviour, he has perhaps inadvertently misled the House as to the meaning of that document.

Unless the minister wishes to read the next paragraph -- which will indicate that it was not individual control but joint control with the government, exactly no more and no less as that indicated in the 1965 agreement that was signed on behalf of the government -- he is leaving a most unfortunate and totally wrong impression with this House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to cause him to read the next paragraph, failing which I will read it into the record.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I will read the next paragraph.

"The simplest way in which their rights under the 1965 agreement with respect to their aesthetic control over the collection and the grounds can be assured is to restore the board of trustees to the same number as the advisory committee referred to in the 1965 agreement, namely, five persons, and to provide that the board shall consist of five members during the lifetime of the McMichaels, and that Mr. and Mrs. McMichael will continue by statute to be two of the trustees, the other two trustees to be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council and the four trustees to appoint a chairman subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council."

In other words, they want to revert --

Mr. Smith: That's right. It's not a veto; it's two, two and one. That's what John Robarts signed. If the Premier (Mr. Davis) says it's stupid --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Baetz, will you continue, please?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, the 1965 agreement which transferred the collection to the crown could not properly, and did not, give the McMichaels control. That control was appropriately invested in the five-member advisory committee, of which the McMichaels were but two members.

Obviously, given the public ownership of the collection and the expenditure of millions of dollars in public funds over the years for its preservation and development, the board of trustees, which includes the McMichaels, must continue to be responsible and accountable for the collection's management and control. The board is responsible to the government, which is responsible to this Legislature and, through it, to the people.

I assume the McMichaels have sought veto powers so that they personally would have unfettered authority to protect the character of the collection. In the long run, I submit the best way to ensure the very continuity and character that the McMichaels seek is by preserving it through the legislation that I am bringing forward to the House today.

CANADIAN COLLEGE BOWL

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, on a very happy note, I wish to draw attention to a very important and exciting sporting event that will be taking place in Toronto this Saturday at Varsity Stadium. I am speaking of the Canadian College Bowl championship between Acadia Axemen from the University of Acadia, Nova Scotia, and the Alberta Golden Bears from the University of Alberta.

These two excellent teams have successfully overcome all the tough opposition of the other teams of the Canadian Inter-University Athletic Union to win the honour of competing in the Canadian College Bowl.

2:30 p.m.

As someone who enjoyed the privilege of participating in college football, I can tell members that the game is sure to be a great battle with a high calibre of play from the young members of both these teams.

As well as being an exciting contest, this particular game, with teams from the east and west regions of our great country, will contribute greatly to the growth of understanding and pride young people feel about our nation. Sporting events of this kind, I believe, have a way of creating emotional bonds of fellowship and respect among both fans and participants.

Mr. Smith: You should be saying it, Tom. You should do it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I would like the young athletes in the gallery to know of the support of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Smith) for this event.

The citizens of Metropolitan Toronto have a special and pleasurable role to play in this process. They can show their support of Canadian amateur sport and all it implies by enjoying the college bowl festival parade at 10 a.m. and by attending the game, which starts at I p.m. at Varsity Stadium.

It has long been a contention of mine that we in this country, both fans and media, pay too little attention to the efforts of young people engaged in amateur sports. I think we both lose on this account; the fans, because they are missing some great contests, and the players, who need the support and enthusiasm of fans to reach high levels of excellence and personal skills.

It is in this context that I urge the fans of Metropolitan Toronto to attend Saturday's game to demonstrate to these teams from opposite regions of Canada our hospitality and support. Our reward will be the strengthening of the concept of national competition as well as the opportunity to view a first-class football game.

At the same time, I extend a warm welcome on behalf of the government of Ontario to the Axemen and the Golden Bears and wish them the best in their contest for the Vanier Cup, the symbol of true achievement in Canadian college football.

Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today we are very pleased to have representatives of both these fine football teams.

Representing the University of Alberta Golden Bears, and he was persuaded to come here directly from practice, is Mr. James Venn; also present is the captain of the Acadia Axemen, Mr. Steve Repik. We are pleased to have with these two fine young athletes, the founder of the Canadian College Bowl, Mr. Peter Gorman.

Mr. Speaker: The time for ministerial statements has expired.

POLICY ON STATEMENTS

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, just before oral questions: Those of us on this side are very supportive of both football teams in the college bowl, but the fact remains that the Attorney General, who should know better, in his attempt to grandstand has hopelessly abused the rules of this House.

There are guidelines for statements by the ministry. This statement, if it should have been made by anyone, should have been made by his colleague the Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Baetz) or by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) and not by the Attorney General.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Roy: May I finish my point of order?

Mr. Speaker: I think you have made your point.

Mr. Roy: Oh no, I am not finished.

Mr. Speaker: All right. You are running into time.

Mr. Smith: What do you mean he is running into time? He is talking about statements.

Mr. Roy: We have not started the oral question period yet. Mr. Speaker, you should remind the Attorney General that when he is going to make a statement in this House he should make it within the policy of his ministry. This last statement had nothing to do with his ministry.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order: I really regret the Leader of the Opposition -- I heard him from across here -- has objected to the Attorney General of this province making a very important and significant statement. I object --

Mr. Smith: I did not object to the statement.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Let me finish for a minute.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I just want to finish the point of order of the member for Ottawa East who took exception to the Attorney General making this statement referring to the rules. I think it fair to state that if --

Mr. Laughren: There are no rules here.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Why does the member not just try to be polite for once?

The very distinguished visitor in your gallery, Mr. Speaker, communicated with my office and asked me to make a statement in support of the college bowl, and I would have done this with great enthusiasm. Quite honestly, I had planned not to be here until later on this afternoon, and I asked the Attorney General.

I will tell the members why I asked the Attorney General. First, he was a great football player in college himself; second --

Interjections

Hon. Mr. Davis: Will they not wait until I finish? Be patient.

Not only was he a great player himself at college --

Mr. T. P. Reid: He played too long without a helmet.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: One or two of us on the team thought we were better, but anyway, he was a great player. Second, he was a great coach. But the members opposite have very short memories. This college bowl, I think, is one of the great things happening in college football in this country. They should know that the Attorney General of this province was at one time the chairman of the college bowl for this country, and I think it was very appropriate for him to make this statement.

Mr. Wildman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: With respect, I think you should have thrown the penalty flag long ago and expelled both of them for excessive talking.

Mr. Smith: Just very briefly, Mr. Speaker, lest the record be in any way confused: We very much support the college bowl. We very much support the athletes and the gentleman, Mr. Gorman, who is here. We are happy the Attorney General used to be chairman. I am sure he did a good job then, in contrast to his present work.

The fact, however, is that a Toronto member of the cabinet has been delivering a statement on Toronto matters when it would have been more legitimately delivered not by a backbencher or by a member from one of the various ridings but by either the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs or the Minister of Culture and Recreation, or even the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) if he likes. That was our only concern, and I think he should realize exactly what we are saying.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.

I just want to point out to all honourable members that although I get a list of those ministers who want to make statements I do not get the contents of those statements. It seems to me if there was a point of order to be made it should have been made by those on the opposition benches who were privy to those remarks before they were delivered.

Mr. Roy: But we did not get copies.

Mr. Speaker: Well, nobody objected.

Interjections.

Mr. Kerrio: Fifteen yards for illegal motion.

Mr. Speaker: Will the member for Niagara Falls please contain himself?

2:40 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PLANT LAYOFFS

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer and Minister of Economics and industrial decline. The minister will no doubt be aware the total number of layoffs announced in the month of November alone in Ontario exceeded 23,000: 19,000 temporary and 4,000 permanent or indefinite. Is he aware that more than 17,000 of these layoffs occurred outside of Metro Toronto? That is the very area where last year not only were new jobs not created, but 24,000 existing jobs were lost. What advice, therefore, does the minister have for the workers who have been laid off now, if they live outside Metro Toronto? Where should they go to retrain or to get new jobs?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the problem obviously is very grave at the moment. Both the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) and I have said so. I hope many of the layoffs the member has just mentioned were, as we believe them to be, not of a permanent nature. There are steps being taken in Ontario to tackle the long-term problems. We have talked about those. We have talked about the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development document and the fact it is laying a foundation for long-term economic growth. In the short term there will be a number of difficulties and we are doing our very best to minimize that impact.

Mr. Smith: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The BILD document stated, "The top priority for the province is to ensure a greatly increased training effort by industry itself," and went on to speak of training during an economic downturn. Thousands of Ontarians are being laid off without new jobs in prospect. How can the Treasurer explain that so far this year, if we leave apart some money spent on research and equipment for universities and colleges and a little on youth counselling, a grand total of $3.5 million has been spent on programs to retrain employees whose skills have been made redundant by changes in the economy?

How would the Treasurer explain that is about one third of the cost of a jet plane for you know who? Nothing else in the BILD program with regard to retraining has been implemented. Some $3.5 million has been spent in the face of this grave emergency the Treasurer says he is taking so seriously.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I think the actual figures on retraining are best given by my colleague, the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Miss Stephenson). In the last year, along with the Ministry of Labour, we have done a lot of things to improve retraining in this province. One only has to turn to the Minister of Colleges and Universities and to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie) for those details.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The Treasurer now admits there are severe short-term problems affecting this province over the course of the winter. He has now had the opportunity to assess the federal budget and to find it is going to have an even greater impact in this province than had been anticipated a couple of weeks ago, is the Treasurer now prepared to bring in a mini-budget and short- term job creation programs this fall that will put Ontario's workers back to work this winter over this period of short-term difficulty'?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The answer on the mini- budget is no, I am not prepared to bring one in this fall. I have attended one set of meetings in Halifax from which I have just returned. There we discussed the cuts I mentioned in my statement today. The exact level of those cuts is still to be confirmed. Since many of them depend upon projections into the future I am not sure anyone can quantify them exactly.

However, I have every reason to believe that when 10 provinces in this country unite as they did in Halifax and tell the federal government those cuts were not in the interests of the people of the country, it will listen. On December 14 and 15, we are meeting again with Mr. McEachen, so I have every reason to believe the cuts may not materialize. He responded at the meeting and said he would --

Mr. Cassidy: What about producing jobs?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The member asked me two separate questions, did he not? I have responded to the first one.

When we have layoffs in any of our industries -- the automobile industry and the farm implement industry have been among the most heavily hit -- we are very concerned. I am sure the honourable member knows there is not a great deal one can do in the short term. One has to wait for an improvement in the market.

One of the brighter spots in our immediate economic future remains the gradual and steady interest rate decline. That has been seen by most economic observers as the main deterrent to consumer purchases. The rate came down fractionally today -- I think eight one hundredths of a point. Most people are predicting it will continue to drop until we see something between 12 and 14 per cent in Canada and perhaps a little less in the US. I for one believe that will have a major impact on the short-term problems.

Mr. Smith: One has to wonder from that response how they can spend the money on Suncor instead of on things that could create jobs.

The Treasurer makes reference to the meeting with Mr. MacEachen on the equalization formula. Was he at all embarrassed that other finance ministers, notably the finance ministers of Newfoundland, Quebec and perhaps some others as well, did not want to have the new formula because the equalization payments would be tied to Ontario's economic performance as the average? Those two provinces said that since Ontario's performance might not be that good in the future they did not want to see their chance to get equalization payments jeopardized by this government's poor economic performance. Did the Treasurer find that at all embarrassing?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, what they said in public and what their real reasons were I think are quite different.

Mr. Smith: You are in the mind-reading business then, are you?

Hon. F. S. Miller: That member is. All he drew were blanks.

Mr. Smith: That's because we were reading your mind.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: It was obvious to see from the earlier discussions he never played football either because he sure would have missed the passes and fumbled the ball.

Mr. T. P. Reid: You played too long without a helmet.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I was coach and a goalie. They always shot a little below my head.

Mr. Cassidy: You are the Treasurer who passes the buck.

Mr. Wildman: You sure wouldn't get the most valuable player award.

Hon. F. S. Miller: It depends upon how they appraise the value.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the Treasurer respond to the question, please?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The truth is, Mr. Speaker, what Ottawa did with equalization was return it to its original purpose: that is, to give to provinces moneys to provide basic services. In choosing Ontario as the norm it eliminated the need for a two-tier system because it implicitly refused to recycle petrodollars. But the fact remains that the maritime provinces see themselves as potential owners of oil resources. In fact as we sat in Halifax, one of those big rigs was in the harbour being towed out by Petrocan to dig outside the harbour -- where there is a by-election.

The new formula not only does not reward the provinces for oil revenues, since Ontario has none, but the moment they have oil revenues it reduces their equalization payments because it becomes a negative. That is the real reason some of the maritime and receiving provinces object to the Ontario standards.

Mr. Smith: That is certainly not what Mr. Collins and Mr. Parizeau said publicly.

AGRICULTURAL POLICY

Mr. Smith: I will ask the Treasurer a question on the subject of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture emergency task force report which undoubtedly he has had a chance to review now. Is the Treasurer aware that the report under the chairmanship of a man who was deputy minister for 11 years, Everett Biggs, says there is an emergency situation? It speaks of the disintegration of the agricultural industry. It talks about people losing their farms and about the need for urgent action on the part of the government.

One could put that together with remarks of the present deputy minister, Duncan Allan, who says the situation is serious: "Ontario's problem is it lacks an agricultural policy. It has not had one for years ... Ontario is in danger of losing its most efficient farmers."

What in heaven's name is required before the Treasurer will finally move to prevent happening in agriculture what has been happening in manufacturing? When will he move in to support the whole field of agriculture, one of our most important industries, before there is further deterioration in that important sector?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am sure the Leader of the Opposition knows I attended a luncheon of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.

Mr. Nixon: That will help.

Hon. F. S. Miller: It is true. It will help and they thought it would help. They were pleased. I would argue that community has every reason to be concerned and the member knows it. They were polite and positive in their comments today, in my opinion. I explained to them the courses of action being undertaken, that this government is studying the Biggs report and will be reacting to it. The Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson) is not here today but he will be responding to that in due course.

Mr. Smith: The document says, "the Band-Aid solutions previously tried are no longer good enough," and adds, "There is an above-normal exodus of farmers through voluntary liquidation and bankruptcy and an increasing danger that a continuation of the present situation will sharply increase an already high exodus rate." Will the government assure us now it is at least prepared to accept the moratorium proposed on liquidations and foreclosures, and also to make available money at the interest rate recommended by this task force?

Hon. F. S. Miller: On the question of the moratorium, I answered that question at noon hour. I pointed out that I only had a brief examination of the report, having had it less than 24 hours. Consequently I was not able, and I am still not able, to answer the question about the law and the moratorium. I have asked for advice on that and I will get it.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: I give credit to my colleague and friend the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) who proposed the moratorium to the task force and had the recommendation accepted. Could the Treasurer say whether he has now had sufficient opportunity to consider the proposals our agricultural critic has been making, and which the task force has also endorsed, that the Province of Ontario Savings Bank should get into the business of providing credit at reasonable rates for farmers to help them stay in the business and get into the business?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have only looked briefly at that recommendation too. The real issue is not whether POSO will loan the money, it is at what rate. The fact remains they ask for a subsidized rate. Subsidization can be given to any source, so POSO is not essential to a subsidized rate.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Riddell: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: Last June, the Treasurer, the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the Minister of Agriculture and Food met with a group of farmers from across the province and told them they had $100 million to help them with their problems. Of that, $35 million has been spent to help the beef industry. The farmers are asking where the rest of the money is. At the luncheon today, the minister told them he would be coming forward with some assistance prior to the close of this session.

It would require only $122 million to implement the task force recommendation for an interest subsidy program that would bring every Ontario farmer's interest rate down to 12 per cent through all short-, intermediate- and long-term loans. It would require less than $100 million to help those farmers on the verge of bankruptcy and those not protected by supply management. How can the minister face the Ontario farmers and state his government cannot find money for such a program and yet can spend $109 million on one year's interest cost alone for Suncor? What programs does he have in mind for the farmers?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, when did I say I could not? He has implied I said something at the meeting today that I did not say.

Mr. MacDonald: You said you would do it in June and did not.

Mr. Riddell: Will you have the money for the farmers before the end of the session?

Mr. Miller: I am not going to answer that today.

BILD PROGRAM

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Treasurer about the BILD program and its effectiveness, particularly since the Treasurer has again suggested it is a long-term foundation and the government has talked about this as the economic blueprint for the province.

Is the Treasurer aware that in Kitchener-Waterloo the Budd plant is down to about 600 jobs from 2,600 in 1979, there have been 50 layoffs at Lear Siegler, 114 layoffs announced at MTD Products, Burns Meat is down by 30 employees, BF Goodrich has just announced 33 workers to be laid off, there have been eight layoffs at Dahmer Steel and 25 at Kuntz Electroplating? There are layoffs throughout the economy of that community.

If the Treasurer will not have a mini-budget or a winter works program, will he say what the BILD program will do, or what the government intends to do, in order to stage a job creation program in the area of Kitchener-Waterloo?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that if we talk about short-term solutions, the members demand long-term ones. If we talk about long-term ones, they complain, there are no short-term ones.

Mr. Smith: Tell the people they can have one or the other.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I did not imply that. I am simply saying one is attacked for whatever one happens to be doing on a given day.

We are doing a number of things. The members opposite talk a great deal about the need to provide research and development in Canada. The BILD document, through an auto parts technology centre, through a microcomputer centre, through a CAD/CAM centre, through a biotechnology centre, through an IDEA Corporation, is attacking the fundamental problems of industry and it is going to do so.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister failed to answer my question about what the BILD program was going to do in the long-term or in the short-term for the people in the Kitchener-Waterloo area. Perhaps he could comment on the failure of the only other government job creation program which would apply to that area, the development loans coming from the Ontario Development Corporation.

Is the minister aware that of the seven loans listed through ODC from 1979 to the present in the Kitchener-Waterloo area, three of the companies which were meant to create a total of some 60 jobs have vanished without trace, and another company in the hardware business has folded? Is he aware that instead of creating 117 jobs, from what we can establish only six new jobs have been created from the Ontario Development Corporation?

What credence are we to put on any promises about long-term job creation from this government when the ODC promised 95 jobs in the Kitchener area and came up with six?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The member has chosen one sector and one city. It is one of the finest and most productive cities in Ontario, and the member knows it. It has always had a reputation for an extremely competent, highly-skilled work force. It is a city I know very well because I spent a good part of my engineering time there, and knew almost every factory in that city. I bet that is something the member could not say. I have been inside them, and I know how most of them run.

The fact is, if ODC did not have failures then we would have been backing too many sure bets. The purpose of ODC is to be the lender of last resort to offer opportunities for employment in this province to companies that have a fighting chance to succeed, and if we do not have a failure rate there we are being too cautious.

Mr. Sweeney: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The minister will realize a number of the plants in Kitchener-Waterloo have had to let their workers go because they have lost contracts. Those contracts are not going to be recovered in the same form. The minister will also realize that he and his colleagues have indicated the route to the future is in high technology. The minister will realize the only way many of those workers are going to get long-term jobs is if they are retrained for the new high-technology industries that are in the process of moving into that area.

Will the minister indicate whether he is prepared, in conjunction with his colleagues, to put money from his Treasury into that community to train people for those new jobs that are going to be required?

3 p.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, that question is best answered by my colleague the Minister of Colleges and Universities, and he knows it.

Mr. Sweeney: No, it is not.

Mr. Smith: It is in the BILD documents and you are the chairman of BILD.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The fact remains that the details of a specific location still remain -- the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development is an overseeing agency and the operating minister --

Mr. Smith: It's an overlooking agency.

Hon. F. S. Miller: One of the things that embarrasses the honourable member is that it has been the most successful campaign and program ever put forward in this province.

Mr. Smith: It overlooks rather than oversees.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Mr. Speaker, the minister's slip of the tongue revealed what BILD was all about when he said it was the most successful campaign. It was a campaign document and not an economic document. Everybody knows that.

My supplementary to the minister is this: He has just expressed confidence in how well things are going in Kitchener-Waterloo. Is the minister not aware the unemployment rate in Kitchener-Waterloo has been running at over eight per cent on average for the past year? In the month of October the unemployment rate in Kitchener-Waterloo was 8.7 per cent, compared with an average across the province of 6.3 per cent.

Is the minister not aware of the fact that the chamber of commerce in Kitchener-Waterloo has now made application to the federal government asking that Kitchener be designated a depressed area, and asking for an industrial labour adjustment program in the same way that Windsor has now been so designated? Could the minister not reply to the specific question, what will this government do in order to see that jobs are created, and created now, in Kitchener-Waterloo?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The honourable member has partly answered his question. He pointed out that the city has asked for the special federal assistance for cities with specific and deeper problems.

It is the business of the members on the opposite side of the House to keep on pointing out that the world is falling apart. The fact remains we still have more people at work in Ontario today than we had a year ago.

ASSISTANCE TO HOME OWNERS

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Treasurer who seems to feel his job as Treasurer is to be the Pollyanna of the Ontario economy in always seeing good news.

My new question to the Treasurer relates to a recent announcement of the Toronto-Dominion Bank that it will insist that prospective home owners be given mortgages only if they can pay 20 per cent or less of their gross monthly income towards housing costs. The traditional role was to allow up to 30 per cent of their gross income to be paid towards housing costs.

Is the minister aware the impact of that will be that people will require a family income of $72,500 to afford the average home available here in Metropolitan Toronto? Could the minister share with the House what he intends to do in order to ensure that home ownership is available for the half of the families in Toronto who earn less than $30,000 a year, or for the 98 per cent of families across the province who earn less than $72,500 a year?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The honourable member has asked variations of that question of my colleague, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) for quite a while.

I do not intend to tell the lending agencies what rules they should use. The honourable member may, but I do not intend to do so. Frankly I would try another bank to begin with, and we have to remember the banks are only a small part of the mortgage field. They remain a small part. There are still a number of other people in the mortgage field who are offering a majority of the home mortgages in Canada.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Since the trust companies are now indicating they are considering the T-D's policy with a view to following it, is the minister not aware that even for the most modest mortgage in the Toronto area a family will need an income of $48,000 a year to afford the mortgage, compared with an income of $33,000 they would have required before? What action does the government intend to take if all mortgagors follow the lead of the Toronto-Dominion Bank and effectively remove any remaining hope of home ownership from people who should have the right to have a house here in Ontario at a price they can afford?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The honourable member really believes there is no competition in the lending field, as in any other field. Of course there is. I have great faith in the free market. I have great faith in the ability of other lenders to offer terms and conditions to attract borrowers. They need borrowers far more than they need investors. They need people willing to borrow money from them at whatever is a reasonable rate at the given time, and in fact they have to be sure the risk is reasonably secure. If one agency becomes too stringent in its terms I have every reason to believe other agencies will fill the vacuum.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Treasurer whether he is aware that the Toronto-Dominion Bank, besides being very restrictive now about whom it is going to give mortgages to, is moving in much more quickly than any other financial institution to foreclose and to force companies into receivership on those loans it already holds?

An example is the Southland Canning company, which was raised here the other day, and our position was backed up by the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson), who was quoted in the Globe and Mail the other day as having said, "I think the bank got in in a hurry on this particular receivership." They did the same thing with Champion Real Estate, they did the same thing with Major Real Estate and they are doing the same thing with mortgages.

Is the Treasurer aware of that, and what is he prepared to do? Will he not intervene to set down some fair guidelines so that they do not close down on companies and then leave the community to pick up the pieces?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I think the honourable member forgets that banks are chartered by the federal government.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, will the Treasurer of Ontario at least convene a meeting with the heads of the banks that operate here in Ontario and express to them our concern that they are so trigger-happy with certain companies which might be able to continue to operate in these tough economic times if they were given an opportunity to survive until interest rates, which I hope will continue to decline, get back to historical levels?

Will he convene a meeting with the heads of the banks and tell them to stop being so trigger-happy and let these corporations and small companies try to readjust themselves internally so they can continue to operate and continue to employ our people?

Mr. Peterson: Very reasonable, very reasonable.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I hear the honourable member for London Centre saying, "Very reasonable, very reasonable." I hope he repeats that kind of thing when he goes around the business community eliciting support for his leadership campaign.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: First of all, my understanding is that the federal minister has done so, and it is his jurisdiction.

MOHAWK COLLEGE

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education, which I have given her notice of. The minister is now aware of the shocking statistics made public by Mohawk College of Applied Arts and Technology showing that young people in Brantford and in Brant county participate in post-secondary education up to 30 per cent less on the average than other young people in Ontario.

Can she tell the House what she is going to do to improve the availability of post-secondary education in that area, since it has now been shown to be afflicted with layoffs and industrial depression more than any other community in the province?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the 22 community colleges within that system in the province have at this point 97 campuses. In most instances these colleges have campuses in other areas that are relatively remote from the main campus of the college. I think it would certainly be appropriate for Mohawk college to look very sympathetically at the possibility of utilizing existing space in Brantford to provide programs there, and I am sure this could be done within the budgetary allocation that is provided for this college.

Mr. Nixon: Since Mohawk College has a budget that is fairly well locked in over a period of years, since it must serve the heavily industrialized and highly populated city of Hamilton and Wentworth county and down into the Niagara Peninsula to some extent, and since this affects the city of Brantford, which has no university facilities whatsoever except a few off-campus lectures and a completely inadequate community college facility, would the minister not feel this is an area where she and some of her colleagues who have a special interest in trying to assist the community of Brantford in these especially difficult economic times might make a special grant -- particularly since a program enunciated by the mayor and the warden in a special task force indicates that $10 million would be a reasonable first step, and she could even think of that as less than one jet plane's worth?

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, since the impetus for this kind of program comes almost invariably from the community, I am delighted to hear that the mayor and the warden are moving in the direction of urging Mohawk to expand in that direction. It is unusual, as a matter of fact, that a municipality the size of Brantford within the catchment area of a community college is not more widely served by that college than Brantford is at the present time. But there are many programs of which Mohawk may take advantage at this point through its community industrial training council -- I believe there is one established in Brantford -- which relates specifically to both the school system and the community college system and through which, I think the honourable member should know, as a result of Board of Industrial Leadership and Development activity 12,287 training positions involving 271 companies have been created since September 1981 for the retraining and upgrading of people in Ontario whose jobs have become redundant. And that is just the beginning.

Mr. Breithaupt: Would the minister table the location of these jobs?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes. I have not got it here, but I will get it for the member.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, can the minister inform this House whether the Ministry of Colleges and Universities and the Council of Regents in this province, along with the committee of presidents, is right now deciding to restrict enrolments in the community colleges around this province?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member is entirely wrong. He is referring to a letter sent by the president of the committee of presidents to the task force within the ministry looking at the growth of the college system. There is no such recommendation being considered by the Ministry of Colleges and Universities at this point.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I have a document here, and the minister can say it is from the committee of presidents and she is correct, which indeed says that the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, the Council of Regents and the committee of presidents should achieve this particular stated goal of restricting enrolments in our community colleges by December --

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

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Let me see the document.

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: There is no such document.

Mr. Mackenzie: If I can have the attention of the Minister of Labour, and if the Minister of Colleges and Universities will pipe down for a minute --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I do not know why I should. You never do.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Hamilton East has the floor.

Mr. Mackenzie: May I draw the minister's attention to the growing practice of international corporations, particularly with branch plant operations, using exports to undermine both the collective bargaining process and legal strike situations.

Is the minister aware, for example, of the long strike at Canadian Home Products in Niagara Falls, where they have been out since August, and the US parent company, American Home Products, has used the export of Chef Boy-ar-dee products to their Canadian customers from the American plant literally to thumb their nose at collective bargaining in the Canadian operation and to prevent a settlement, when the workers at the Canadian plant are running better than $2 an hour behind the major organized canneries in southwestern Ontario? Does this growing practice, of which there are other examples, not concern the minister, given its implications in regard to effective and free collective bargaining?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the particular strike the honourable member referred to, nor am I aware that there is such a prevalent practice. I am aware, as he is, that when there is a strike situation each party tries to survive as best it can. In the one case, we have those on strike with strike pay, and some getting part-time jobs. On the other hand, we have a company trying to survive, either using products it has stored up or importing other products. I guess the question the member asks is whether that is something that is appropriate, and I have to say my first impression is that I do not think it is.

Mr. Mackenzie: Would the minister then agree to take a special look at the Canadian Home Products plant and the strike situation in Niagara Falls, and others that we may bring to his attention that may be in the same kind of a situation? I think Wabco in Stoney Creek is another perfect example.

Would he see if measures can be taken to prevent such undermining of the rights of workers to free and collective bargaining and also to the undermining of a legal strike situation? Would he see if some action can be taken under the Labour Relations Act in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I am sure the member knows full well that mediators are always in contact with the parties when there is a strike, and whenever their assistance is desired it is given. I certainly will be glad to look into it from that point of view.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, would the minister have any idea as to whether the bilingual labels that are being used in that American plant are being shipped down from its Canadian counterpart and if there is any breach of the regulations as it relates to that kind of an involvement?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: No, I do not know.

WINTER WORKS PROGRAM

Mr. Yakabuski: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Treasurer, and I am a little reluctant to ask it after all the questions he has had today. However, given the importance of the matter, I feel forced to do so.

The Treasurer and his counterparts from across Canada were meeting with the federal Minister of Finance on the east coast on Monday and Tuesday, and I am wondering if the matter of a winter works program came up on the agenda. If the Treasurer will remember, back in the good old days we had what we called a winter works program. This was junked shortly after the Trudeau government came to power. The winter works program was administered by the municipalities, because no one is as close to the problem or knows the answer to the economic problems of municipalities --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the member have a question?

Mr. Yakabuski: -- as the municipalities. I am wondering if the provincial Treasurers down in Halifax gave consideration to a good old fashioned bread and butter winter works program for 1981-82.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, no they did not. This province made a few pleas at the end of the meeting, under the fifth agenda item called "other business," for a re-examination of job stimulation and other measures that I believe fundamentally are disincentives to investment in this country, like investment averaging annuities, interest deductibility, those kinds of things, because those are measures which cause people to create jobs and take risks.

However, the federal government, while not saying it would not help us, did not give us any expectation that it would.

SITE FOR VOLKSWAGEN PLANT

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Tourism and I raise it in the knowledge that my friend from Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke) has already touched on some of these matters in one of his world-famous open letters.

Given the fact that the agreement with the federal government giving Volkswagen duty remission was concluded even before Ontario opened discussions with Volkswagen in terms of incentive grants, and given that to get a duty remission agreement from the federal government Volkswagen had to commit itself to locate in Canada, specifically in Barrie, and had committed itself to that very site, can the minister explain why the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) stated in this House on November 13 that Ontario almost lost the deal to the United States, when clearly the decision to locate in Canada was already finalized?

Will he explain what the people of Ontario are going to get for the $9.2 million handout that was given after the decision to locate in Barrie was already made?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, let me say right off the top, the member ought to remember the fact that, as we have been indicating for some time in this House, our negotiations with Volkswagen did not begin after the duty remission program was agreed to, but began several years ago.

3:20 p.m.

Secondly, agreement in principle was worked out with this government at about the same time when agreement with the federal government on the duty remission was worked out. The two of them were operating in tandem, because there was a certain point at which Volkswagen found it more profitable to build a plant here and source from other auto plants here rather than just source from a variety of American plants in the United States for that plant.

There is no question about the fact that the federal duty remission program was worth a certain amount of money. I do not think anyone who was involved in the negotiations will deny the fact that given the duty remission program as negotiated in tandem with ours it still had not reached a situation where Volkswagen, which will probably lose money in its operations in total this year, would have found it viable to locate anywhere in Canada.

The reason we almost lost it is because the federal government had dilly-dallied so much at the end by trying to move Volkswagen to an uneconomic site -- a site that Volkswagen did not want to go to -- that Volkswagen almost threw up its hands and said, "We cannot wait any longer because we have to begin to ship parts in about 24 months" -- I think it is 24 months, but I stand to be corrected -- "and therefore if a decision is not taken which will allow us to begin to make parts right now, then we will simply take the option which Canadians do not want us to take, which is to source auto parts from a variety of American-owned and American-located plants."

I might also take this opportunity to say to the member -- and I know his special interest in Windsor -- that we would have fought just as hard for Windsor or Cambridge or any other municipality in this province had Volkswagen decided that other municipality was the most competitive place for it to carry on business in this province. We fought very hard for Volkswagen and we were successful.

I will say to the honourable member, I do not think it is helpful to Windsor or to any other community in this province to suggest that this government gives away money when it is not necessary to give it away. There was a very tough competition for that Volkswagen plant and I suggest, with all due respect, that had we landed that Volkswagen plant for Windsor, had Volkswagen selected Windsor, he would not be up on his feet complaining about the fact that we gave the company $9.2 million to locate in Ontario. So just be fair to workers all over this province.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask the minister something regarding Windsor. A confidential document written by Volkswagen on August 12 of this year, cited in the Windsor Star one day after the questions were asked of the Treasurer, says:

"It is likely" -- and I am quoting from the document as it was contained in the Windsor Star -- "provincial assistance may not be forthcoming in the case of Windsor." Given that comment in an internal Volkswagen memorandum, would the minister tell the House whether Volkswagen was told that grant money would be made available if it located in any of the possible Ontario sites, including Windsor and Cambridge? Since the minister has said he was fighting just as hard for those two cities as he was for Barrie, will the minister table in this House any correspondence making such an offer to Volkswagen?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, our offers were contained in face-to-face negotiations between my staff and Volkswagen and ultimately in negotiations between myself and a senior official of Volkswagen. May I point out that what the member has read is a document wherein Volkswagen speculates that assistance may not be forthcoming from the province for a location in Windsor. I would remind him that by August 12, or whatever date he mentioned in August, it had already become quite clear that Volkswagen was desirous of locating in Barrie, indeed was insisting upon locating in Barrie. That is the way it was.

Secondly, it was clear that the federal government was prepared to spend tens of millions of dollars to move them to another site. At no time did Volkswagen or anyone else come in to see us with any serious discussions or negotiations about any other municipality.

Volkswagen's position through the piece was that the federal government had to allow the company to go to Barrie. Therefore, Volkswagen decided it would not undertake serious negotiations with us with regard to any other site. As the member will understand, Volkswagen would have been faced with a series of requests from us to prove the extra cost of locating in Windsor, Cambridge or wherever. It took $9.2 million in the Barrie location. Their extra costs of locating in Ontario might have been higher or lower had the vacant Hayes-Dana plant been in Cambridge or in Windsor. Therefore, it could be that the level of our assistance might have been different to land them in another community.

We could not change the fact that the Hayes-Dana plant was in Barrie. I am delighted there was such a facility in Ontario. In fact, as the members will recall, the New Democratic Party criticized us for providing some employment development fund assistance to get Hayes-Dana to build that plant, which ultimately, though quite unexpectedly, allowed Volkswagen to find some accommodation here in Ontario.

I want to make it absolutely clear so that the member does not misinterpret what I am saying. I know he has always tried to be reasonably fair and balanced in this. Unlike the open letter writer, he tries to be fair and balanced in these things. May I say very simply that Volkswagen did not approach us and ask what level of assistance we thought we might be able to provide had they decided to take the federal government up on a large offer to locate in Windsor.

Mr. Cooke: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker -- and to the member for Windsor-Sandwich, I will carbon copy him on my letters in the future so he does not have to wait two and a half weeks to raise it -- I would like to ask the minister how the Volkswagen people received the impression from this document that the provincial government was not prepared to encourage them to come to Windsor or to make the same type of grant available if they came to Windsor, and therefore made Windsor uneconomical right from the beginning? They received that impression from somebody and it had to be someone in the ministry.

Second, it says in this document, "Volkswagen is willing to consider such investment in return for freedom of duty at the site of its economical and operational preference." That statement indicates, as does this whole document, that they were willing to come here for duty remission and not for a grant from this government. What did the government get in return for its $9.2 million? When is the minister going to table in this House the agreement signed with Volkswagen for the $9.2 million?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I am amused by the member's question because he said there is evidence -- I forget how he phrased it -- that the location in Windsor was uneconomic from the beginning.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Relax. It was uneconomic from the beginning. He then went on to say they could only have received that information from my ministry. I know the member has an extremely high regard for the capability of my people to make business decisions. However, it may astonish him that the Volkswagen people have a fair amount of economic experience as well. They are the ones, not my ministry, who looked around at the alternative sites in this province. They are the ones who concluded that the most economic place for them to go was Barrie. They are the ones who concluded that Barrie was the site they had to have in order to locate in Ontario.

I thank the member for the high regard in which he holds our economic judgement and, quite frankly, it is justified. But I must tell him, in this case it was not the government telling Volkswagen that Windsor was not the place to go, it was Volkswagen telling Volkswagen.

In one of his open letters to me, I hope the member will explain why he thinks it is constructive to encouraging more investment in Windsor to continually stand up and remind the world that Volkswagen decided to go to Barrie.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour regarding ITT Aimco. I remind him that he has failed to respond, as he promised, to the questions I raised several weeks ago.

In view of the fact that the minister's own figures indicate there have been 12 physical inspections of ITT, 39 orders issued and 85 contraventions of the act -- by the way, the union says 99 contraventions -- will the minister supply to me the material which his assistant Mr. Basken refused to?

We asked for the following information: the specific orders outlining detailed violations of the act; the number of orders which are repeat violations; the number of directions, letters or other notices of violation which the minister co-operatively attempted to rectify with the company; the specifics of these, and the number of prosecutions against ITT. I received only one page when we requested all that information. Will the minister supply the information I requested?

3:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to make inquiries and determine what, if any, were the reasons behind the refusal. There may be something in the act that precludes the officer, the investigator or any of the staff from giving that information, but if there is nothing to preclude it I will be pleased to see that it is forwarded to the member.

Getting back to the question of whether or not I have answered the member's question, he will recall I did respond to the issue of whether or not there had been any contraventions and so forth, but with respect to the particular issue he raised of a workman who had refused to work and there was a question of some injuries, I would like to think the fact that I set up a meeting involving Mr. Basken from the occupational health and safety division, Dr. Robinson, the member himself, as well as representatives of the union, to discuss these very issues and then carry out investigations as a result of that, really is responding to the issue.

I trust he agrees with that, because I thought that was really a very direct way of trying to deal with the problem that I know he feels very seriously about.

Mr. Martel: What bothers me with this particular company, and the minister will be aware of this, is that last year there were 116 accidents and there are only 400 employees. This year there are more than that already. Of the violations, 40 are repeat violations of not having equipment guarded and five are violations for guardrails. I want to know how many times a company can violate the act in the same manner before the minister is prepared to prosecute? How many times can one violate the act before he is prepared to move?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I do not think one should lay down a rule. I think one should assess each situation and take it on its own merits. I think anybody who is as concerned about the issue as I know the member will know the number of prosecutions this year is up from last year. But surely that is not the purpose of it all. The purpose of it all is to make the work place better and safer. That is what we are trying to do now with the meetings that are taking place with Mr. Basken who, as the member knows, has had considerable experience with improving relationships and making the internal responsibility system work. That may be the real issue here. If it is, surely that is the best way to address it.

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN COLLECTION

Mr. Hodgson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Culture and Recreation. I am very concerned about the reports in the press, also the reports within the community that I represent, concerning Mr. and Mrs. Robert McMichael. It is reported that the Ministry of Culture and Recreation is turning them out on the street. What is the ministry doing for living accommodations for the McMichaels?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, when those press reports were brought to my attention I immediately got in touch with the chairman of the board of the McMichael gallery, because obviously that was a rather serious point of concern. He has advised me that quite some months ago the McMichaels were told by the board of directors of the gallery that during the renovation period the board would support them if they found an apartment of their choice which they have now done at a rental cost of $1,600 a month.

In addition to that, they will receive moving expenses to and from Kleinburg. I just want to assure the member for York North that the McMichaels will be living very comfortably during the period of renovation.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, rather than demeaning himself and the entire McMichael Canadian Collection corporation with these diatribes, will the minister explain to us why he did not release the report surrounding problems with the McMichael collection for the last number of years? Why has he not tabled them today as he promised to do?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: That is not a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Will all respect, that is a new question.

NIAGARA RIVER POLLUTION

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Is the minister aware that SCA Chemical Waste Services is basically asking for the same thing it asked for in 1979? In 1979, the government did not act. If it had, that pipeline might not have been in that lower river today. I pleaded with Dr. Parrott at that time to intervene.

Mr. Smith: The Minister of Culture and Recreation is a slimy, slimy character; that's what he is. How many months is that for? We know the figure he wants to get on the record. How many months is that for?

Mr. Speaker: Order. With all respect, the member for Niagara Falls has the floor. He will please proceed.

Mr. Kerrio: The minister may recall that at the time I pleaded with Dr. Parrott to intervene and oppose that pipeline installation. In the Ministry of the Environment estimates, I said his weight would mean a great deal in the area. and he responded, "Sure it would, but it would be absolutely wrong, because they have jurisdictional control; and that is the way it should be."

Is it not ironic that in 1979 his ministry did not become involved, yet the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch) did and suggested that we should keep the waste out of our river, that there should not be one more drop? His ministry did not intervene in 1979 because a report from the ministry concluded the project would have a negligible effect on the water quality of the Niagara River.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr. Kerrio: Yes, I do; and it is a very important question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Please proceed.

Mr. Kerrio: At this moment they are building a pipeline. Is the minister aware that they are building a pipeline to bring water to Niagara by an alternative route? What events have occurred to prompt him finally to take action in this important matter? What has changed?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, I do not have particular knowledge of the various pleadings the honourable member might have engaged in with my predecessor. I do not have time to read all the back Hansards, unfortunately. I am sure it would be interesting reading.

There is a significant difference between the time he referred to and the present with respect to SCA's present application. At the time the previous proposal was before us, there was an analysis done by our staff of the technology involved, the treatment process and the levels of permissible material to be included in the permit. On the basis of the work done by our staff, we concluded, and Environment Canada did as well, that it was not a hazard, it would not have an impact upon drinking water quality.

What we are faced with at this time is a specific application for a relaxation of the standards to allow higher quantities of contaminants to be discharged into the river. In view of the knowledge I have from recent reports of the high level of the total discharge into that river system from the American side, I have decided we ought not to tolerate any relaxation but ought to be pressing for a tightening of standards in the United States and a reduction of the contaminants discharged into the river. That is the difference.

Mr. Kerrio: The minister is saying, "Not another drop." The fact that the first installation was going to have diffusion nozzles out in the river is evidence enough that they were trying to dilute it.

I ask another question that is important and significant. Does the minister not think he should have asked the federal minister to join with him this time? As late as 11:30 a.m. today, the federal minister did not know this minister was deciding he might take some important action in this case.

Does the minister not think he would have been well advised to have made it a team effort and brought everything to bear so that he would make a better case; that is, if he had had the minister from the federal government in conjunction with him to make a much abler case on behalf of Ontario and Canada?

3:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Norton: First, with respect to diffusion nozzles, they are an important part of the technology. If one is going to be discharging a substance into a waterway --

Mr. Kerrio: Yes, they are used to dilute.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Precisely: to minimize the impact it might have in a concentrated form on an individual fish. That makes sense, if the member would apply his mind to it for a moment.

Mr. Kerrio: Oh, I know exactly why they do it.

Hon. Mr. Norton: That is an important part of the technology. However, that is not to say that I like it, but that I understand it.

With regard to the Honourable John Roberts, I was in contact with his office this morning. He was advised that I would be making this statement prior to coming into the House. Copies of two letters I was sending to him were telexed to his office, I believe before noon.

My staff are attempting to arrange an early meeting between Mr. Roberts and myself. Maybe a copy of the letter was appended to the statement. The latest I have heard from my staff is that there is a good possibility I may have the opportunity of meeting with Mr. Roberts in Toronto next Monday.

I have indicated in my letter to him a desire to see the federal government work with us in this, although I also understand from our experience on the acid rain issue that there are certain kinds of initiatives the federal government are hesitant to take. I can understand why. For example, it might be easier for a provincial government to intervene in a court or before a tribunal in the United States than it would be for the federal government, from a purely diplomatic point of view.

I would like to see the federal government co-operate in every way possible. There are some things it can do that we cannot, in terms of relating at the diplomatic level to the Secretary of State in the United States. I would hope it would do that. If it is able to participate with us in the interventions, I will warmly welcome its help.

IRWIN TOY DISPUTE

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: On Tuesday, the rather serious matter of the Irwin Toy situation and the company's thumbing of its nose at the law in Ontario was raised in this House. The Premier (Mr. Davis) indicated there would be a statement from the Minister of Labour. I am wondering if and when that will be forthcoming.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I happened to note in my book that this question had been asked. If there is time, I can respond at the moment, Mr. Speaker; whatever you wish.

Mr. Speaker: Question period is over.

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. Gordon from the standing committee on general government reported the following resolutions:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982:

Ministry administration program, $10,421,000; community planning program, $67,724,000; land development program, $13,674,000; community development program, $36,148,000; Ontario Housing Corporation program, $131,992,000; Ontario mortgage program, $6,497,000; ministry administration program, legal services, $310,000; municipal affairs program, municipal affairs, $372,585,600;

That supply in the following supplementary amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982:

Ontario mortgage program, $5,000,000; municipal affairs program, $17,198,000.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr. Treleaven from the standing committee on administration of justice presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr9, An Act to revive Bankfield Consolidated Mines Limited.

Bill Pr15, An Act to revive the Burford Lions Club.

Bill Pr19, An Act to revive Jacinta Investments Limited.

Your committee would recommend that the fees, less the actual cost of printing, be remitted on Bill Pr 15, An Act to revive the Burford Lions Club.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN COLLECTION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Baetz moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Elgie, first reading of Bill 175, An Act to amend the McMichael Canadian Collection Act.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the motion carry?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I can respond on Monday.

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Renwick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Does the minister have any further statement to make about his bill before the motion is put to the assembly?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to reread --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. With all respect, the member for Riverdale stood up. I had read it and called for the motion to be carried --

Mr. Nixon: You don't debate first reading, do you?

Mr. Renwick: Before you called for the motion to be carried, Mr. Speaker, I tried to catch your eye, because you generally do not give us time to consider the motion. I was simply asking whether, before the motion was put, the minister, on reflection, wanted to correct or add to anything he had said in his previous statement.

Mr. Speaker: No. The member for Riverdale is out of order.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I refer to standing order 32(b), which reads: "The motion for introduction and first reading shall be decided without amendment or debate, but in the case of a public bill the mover may make a brief explanation of its purposes." On that point of order I asked whether the minister wanted to make a brief explanation or correction of the statement he had made earlier in the day. I say, Mr. Speaker, that my point is quite in order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that when he introduced the bill the minister did make a statement.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I think the honourable member is aware that the current practice and procedure in this House is that if a statement on introduction of a bill is to be very short, perhaps categorized as about a page long, the minister will make it at the time the bill is introduced when he is asking for first reading. If the statement is to be longer than that, it is made during ministerial statements.

My colleague made a ministerial statement today of about 15 minutes concerning this bill. Therefore, that is the introductory statement for first reading of this bill. I submit to you that everything is in order and that the rules make it very clear that there should be no debate on first reading.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, may I speak again to the point of order? The practice has become immensely sloppy, if I may use that word. The House has become sloppy in its procedure when a bill is introduced for first reading, because you immediately move the motion for first reading and then call on the minister or the mover to make the statement.

I was simply asking, in accordance with the rules, whether the minister on reflection, after having made that very lengthy statement at the opening of the House, now wanted to correct any of the misinformation that was contained in that statement at the appropriate time when he was introducing the bill.

3:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest again that the member for Riverdale is out of order. If I may refer to standing order 32(b), it says very clearly, "The motion for introduction and first reading shall be decided without amendment or debate, but in the case of a public bill the mover may make a brief explanation of its purposes." With all respect, he did make a statement --

Mr. Renwick: That's what I'm asking.

Hon. Mr. Wells: He made his explanation.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is a permissive regulation. The minister did not indicate in any way that he wanted to make a statement; all he has to do now, if he wishes to do so, is to indicate whether or not he does.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that I made a very lengthy statement, I do not feel anything could be added at this point to make it very forceful.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

4:30 p.m.

The House divided on Hon. Mr. Baetz's motion for first reading of Bill 175, An Act to amend the McMichael Canadian Collection Act, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Bennett, Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Davis, Dean, Drea, Eaton, Elgie, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Harris, Havrot, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Kells, Kennedy, Kerr, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk, McCaffrey, McCague, McLean;

McMurtry, McNeil, Miller, F. S., Mitchell, Norton, Piché, Pope, Ramsay, Robinson, Rotenberg, Runciman, Scrivener, Sheppard, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Timbrell, Treleaven, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Wells, Williams, Yakabuski.

Nays

Boudria, Bradley, Breaugh, Breithaupt, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, Copps, Di Santo, Eakins, Edighoffer, Elston, Epp, Grande, Haggerty, Kerrio, Laughren, MacDonald, Mackenzie, Mancini, Martel, McClellan, McEwen;

McGuigan, McKessock, Miller, G. I., Newman, Nixon, O'Neil, Philip, Reid, T. P., Renwick, Riddell, Roy, Ruprecht, Ruston, Samis, Smith, Spensieri, Swart, Sweeney, Van Horne, Wildman, Worton, Wrye.

Ayes 56; nays 45.

CO-OPERATIVE CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Walker, seconded by Hon. Mr. Gregory, moved first reading of Bill 176, An Act to amend the Co-operative Corporations Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, it appears necessary to read a statement. The present Co-operative Corporations Act permits conversion of a co-operative to a corporation under the Business Corporations Act if authorized by resolution of the board of directors, which receives confirmation by at least three quarters of the votes cast at a general meeting of the members duly called for the purpose.

Another provision in the act permits 10 per cent of the members to requisition the directors to call a meeting to pass any resolution that may be passed at the directors' meeting, such as the resolution noted above to convert from a co-operative to a business corporation.

If the directors do not pass the resolution and call a meeting of members to confirm it, any of the requisitionists may call such a meeting to confirm the resolution in the usual manner. The net result of the above is that a conversion of a co-operative to a business corporation could be effected by as few as 10 per cent of the members requisitioning a meeting and an even smaller proportion voting for the conversion at a meeting.

The purpose of the bill is to require that 60 per cent of the members of a co-operative must confirm in writing any resolution to convert a co-operative to a co-operative with or without share capital or a corporation to which the Business Corporations Act applies or to which part III of the Corporations Act applies.

CANADIAN REFORMED THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE ACT

Mr. Kerr, seconded by Mr. McLean, moved first reading of Bill Pr42, An Act respecting the Theological College of the Canadian Reformed Churches.

Motion agreed to.

4:40 p.m.

Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, this bill makes it possible for the theological college --

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is a private bill, apparently, and does not need any explanation.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Kolyn moved, seconded by Mr. Sheppard, first reading of Bill 177, An Act to amend the Residential Tenancies Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills --

An hon. member: How about an explanation?

An hon. member: He's supposed to give an explanation.

Mr. Speaker: All right. The member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Martel: Take if off the top of your head.

Mr. Kolyn: I beg your pardon?

An hon. member: Who wrote it for you?

Mr. Kolyn: Oh, I know where it is. I just wanted to hear what the member had to say about it.

Mr. Speaker, the bill prohibits officers and employees of the Residential Tenancy Commission from acting as advocates in hearings before the commission for a one-year period upon leaving the commission. The maximum penalty is $10,000.

Mr. Philip: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I thought that under the House rules the same bill could not be introduced in the same session of the Legislature. In fact, I introduced that bill on Tuesday; the only difference is the time period, and I suggest that this bill should not be tabled.

Mr. McClellan: You can't steal somebody else's bill.

Mr. Martel: That's pure plagiarism.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It really does not make any difference, apparently. The bills are not the same.

Mr. Philip: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker:

It is the second bill he has stolen from me in something like three months.

Mr. Speaker: I can sympathize with the member, but it is not a point of order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. May we have the permission of the House to revert to reports?

Some hon. members: No.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. McLean moved, seconded by Mr. Kolyn, resolution 29:

That this House urge the federal Minister of Regional Economic Expansion to extend the benefits for regional development to include the northern part of Simcoe county, the district of Muskoka and the northern parts of Grey county.

Mr. Speaker: I want to point out to the honourable member that he has up to 20 minutes for his presentation, and he may reserve any portion of that time for his windup.

Mr. McLean: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today on a matter of grave concern to me and my constituents. The resolution I am putting before this chamber asks the honourable members to assist me in respectfully urging the federal Minister of Regional Economic Expansion to extend the benefits for regional development to include the northern parts of Grey and Simcoe counties and the southern part of Muskoka county.

There is simply no issue of greater and more immediate importance to my constituents than the issue of economic development. Statistics clearly show the southern Georgian Bay region is experiencing a level of economic hardship unseen in decades. Unemployment, population growth and per capita income are below average, and layoffs and closures outnumber new jobs created seven to one.

Although these counties comprise some of the most beautiful and pleasurable tourist areas in this country, the region will continue to experience serious impediments to diversified economic growth unless given special assistance and support. This region needs and deserves help.

In my research dealing with useful programs and strategies for the region of Simcoe and Georgian Bay, I have concluded the most useful assistance that could be forthcoming at this time is special designation under the regional development incentives program administered by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.

Before I detail the accomplishments of this program, allow me to inform the House as to the structure, resources and mandate of DREE. I read with strong personal conviction a passage from the charter of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion describing the background and responsibilities of the department. It states:

"DREE was created to implement long-term, large-scale, integrated and co-ordinated programs dealing with economic and social development designed primarily to reduce the disparity in employment opportunities between the province and the regions. It obtained authority to assist provincial and municipal governments in improving community infrastructure in special areas.

"In implementing related social adjustment measures in these affected areas, authority has also been obtained to assist private enterprise wishing to locate, expand and modernize manufacturing and processing facilities in designated regions."

Acknowledging the invaluable efforts made by the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) and his staff, we in Ontario observe with great satisfaction the successful campaign being waged against economic inequality which has plagued our diverse province in the past.

Many of the members may be unaware of DREE's effectiveness in creating jobs since its inception in 1969. During the past 12 years, DREE has helped to create an estimated 100,000 jobs in this country, including almost 9,000 in Ontario. This latter figure pales in comparison to the accomplishments of the Ontario economy during the 1970s, when more than one million new jobs were created in that decade alone.

Most of the members in this House will be aware that this province is quite fortunate when compared to some of its provincial counterparts. Blessed with abundant natural and human resources, a close and prosperous North American market and the sound, responsible management of this government, we in Ontario are privileged to participate in one of the most affluent, civilized societies on earth.

Yet surely a quality that characterizes our system is our willingness to assist areas less fortunate than ourselves, within and beyond our borders. It is that quality I appeal to, because I feel it can easily be shown that the counties I have indicated in my resolution stand out as meriting designation under DREE's regional development incentives program.

The program, through which the department deals directly with private enterprise without bringing in the provinces, attempts to create jobs through capital investment. The program provides financial assistance in the form of incentive grants and loan guarantees to businesses and industry willing to establish, expand or modernize their facilities in certain designated regions of the country.

4:50 p.m.

The regional development incentives program in 1979-80 resulted in expenditures of $108.6 million, approximately 18.4 per cent of departmental expenditures for the year. Activities during the year resulted in 977 net accepted offers of incentives. The projects assisted are expected to create more than 17,000 direct jobs and to involve some $672.7 million in capital investment by private industry and, from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, a commitment of $154.3 million.

More specifically, in Ontario the regional development incentives program resulted in 48 projects with DREE involvement of $12.9 million. The projects assisted are expected to create more than 900 new jobs and to generate capital investment of approximately $51.9 million.

Allow me to clarify for the House the four goals that the initiatives program attempts to accomplish with the assistance: the modernization of existing productive facilities without significantly increasing the capacity; the construction of new facilities which must be self-supporting operations independent of any existing facility; the support of new product expansion in which additional assets are required to manufacture or process a product that is significantly different from any item produced in the preceding three years; and assistance for volume expansion which entails expansion of existing facilities to increase the output of products currently being produced.

It may interest the House to know that the federal minister, Mr. Pierre De Bané, is on record as stating that the Regional Development Incentives Act is probably the most useful tool that Ottawa possesses in its fight against increased inequality. Recently he stated that the program has been "a most effective weapon in helping us to realize our goals for regional development."

Permit me now to concentrate my remarks on the region in question. I have been very deliberate in my choice of counties which I believe merit DREE designation. I hope the members opposite will recognize the nonpartisan manner in which I have done so. My research has convinced me that the belt of land encompassing the southern shores of Georgian Bay is a region fraught with economic difficulties. My colleagues will provide informed and convincing statistics later in the debate which leave no doubt as to the present economic climate of the region. I believe we will demonstrate help is needed now; it is vital and it is deserved.

At present, the boundary for designation under DREE's assisted program is from Parry Sound, through Renfrew and up into the Gatineau Hills beyond Hull, Quebec. As such, all areas north of this boundary are eligible and all areas south of it are not. It should become quite obvious to this House that the counties I have mentioned, whose economic characteristics are so dramatically presented before us today, have difficulties far more associated with rural areas north of the DREE boundary than urban areas to the south. To remedy this, I simply ask that we consider whether it is not more equitable to the citizens of this region that we offer, as a nation concerned about economic equality, some measure of support and assistance under the objectives of DREE's incentives program.

In conclusion, I hope that during the course of this debate members will understand and accept the just and equitable nature of this resolution. Moreover, I hope that together today we will recognize not only the economic problems of southern Georgian Bay but also its economic potential. Respectfully, I urge members and the federal Minister of Regional Economic Expansion to understand this.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): There are nine minutes left.

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this resolution. I congratulate the member for Simcoe East for bringing forward this resolution, which states, "That this House urge the federal Minister of Regional Economic Expansion" -- Pierre De Bané -- "to extend the benefits for regional development to include the northern part of Simcoe county, the district of Muskoka and the northern parts of Grey county."

The member has the right idea, but I am not sure why he put the boundaries where he did. I see nothing wrong with the old DREE boundaries, which were terminated a couple of years ago. Those boundaries took in all of Simcoe, Grey and Bruce counties and the northern parts of Dufferin and Wellington counties. I feel the reasons those boundaries were selected in the first place still exist. Our area is depressed and is quite a distance from markets. There is a need for some incentive to allow these areas at least to hold their own in these times of extreme competition for industry and development.

All of Ontario should be reviewed. I hope the member understands the areas that are going to be covered come from recommendations from the Treasury of Ontario; so we certainly must get the Treasurer of this government to make sure he makes proper recommendations to the federal government, because it is from his recommendations that it will be choosing the areas covered.

Why should our children all have to leave the area and go to the bigger cities or to other provinces to obtain work? Should we not put the necessary incentive in this area to make it attractive for industry to develop here and supply work for our people to allow them to stay at home? People like to live in our area. It is a beautiful place to live and raise a family, but we need more than nice scenery and ski hills to raise a family: we need employment.

We have land that is unsuitable for farming which could be used for industry, but this will not happen as long as it is possible to develop good level farm land near the big cities. With some incentives through the federal Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, industry might develop our area. People would have the added benefits of living in a great beauty spot with ski hills in the winter and spring-fed rivers for fishing in the summer.

Of course, we may have a problem convincing the federal government that we have a problem. I wonder if the member knows that before he was elected, his government did not fight to recover more than $1.5 billion in equalization payments from the federal government. When Ontario fell into the category of a have-not province, the Ontario government did not want to be known as a have-not province; so it did not press to obtain these payments from the federal government.

To talk out of both sides of one's mouth or to put out one's hand and then pull it away before someone can put something in it is sometimes difficult. We may now have trouble convincing the feds we need the billion dollars.

We are not proud in Grey, Bruce, Dufferin, Simcoe and Wellington. We will accept the federal government's money in our area. We will not cut off our nose to spite our face. We will say, "Mr. De Bané, please ignore the Premier of this province when he tries to let you think we are not a have-not province."

Listen to the member for Simcoe East or the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins), who also wanted to speak on this bill if there had been time, talk about the Haliburton area. Mr. De Bané should listen to us. We are not proud; we know we have a depressed area, and we will let him help us.

Put the old ARDA program back in the same area it was in before. The ARDA program worked well. It was also nice to know what one could get with it. The rules and regulations were written down and easy to read. For every job one created, one got a $5,000 grant. That was simple and effective. A similar program with some improvements would work just fine.

5 p.m.

When this resolution passes today, I suggest that the member for Simcoe East set up a meeting with the Honourable Pierre De Bané, the federal minister responsible for regional economic expansion, along with the rest of us who took part in this debate today. We will go to Ottawa, meet the minister and present our case, with the backing, I hope, of the Legislature today.

I urge all members to support this resolution at six o'clock tonight. Then I hope we will be off to Ottawa to carry this resolution further. So many times a resolution passes in this House and that is the end of it.

The job of the member for Simcoe East will not be over when this resolution passes today. He should set up the meeting with the federal minister and invite those of us who are here today to join him. Let us take action to carry this resolution through and get what we are after.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, I want to say very briefly that we have no opposition to this resolution. Since the member comes from a riding that is known as a slow-growth area in the province, I can understand his concern about and aspirations for this region and extending it to Grey-Bruce.

One fundamental point I want to make is that no matter what counties are designated under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, we have to look at the simple fact that every county and municipality in this province operates in the context of both the economic situation in Ontario and Canada and the economic priorities pursued by the two levels of government.

The simple fact is that every farmer, every businessman, every corporation, every entrepreneur in any riding represented in this Legislature has to contend with high interest rates, which are having a devastating effect on the growth of every region, especially the smaller and more distant regions.

It is a simple fact of life, for example, that every municipality in every province will have to cope with the federal budget. In this province we are talking about a loss of probably in the realm of $1.1 billion over the next five years, which will have to be made up. We know, on the basis of the results of the last budget and the Treasurer's rather fond embrace of Reaganomics, that the municipalities are going to be in deep trouble come the next budget, as are school boards and various social agencies. That is a fact of life that every county and every region has to live with.

The member should realize that if we embrace and pursue Reaganomics, as his Treasurer seems to want to do, it means less government spending, it means balancing the books and it means less intervention in the marketplace, which in a slow-growth area means the government is taking its money out. The whole mentality of Reaganomics is, "Let the marketplace decide." This means the big get bigger and the small get smaller. That hurts small towns like Orillia and Owen Sound, because he and I both know it is Toronto that will get the bulk of the growth.

I suggest to the member that if he wants to see future growth prospects for his region, he had better convince his Treasurer to divorce himself as quickly as possible from the philosophy of Reaganomics. That is the single most devastating thing for the people of his region -- and for the people of all of this province, when one comes to think of it.

All one has to do is read the daily accounts in the newspaper to see what Reaganomics is producing in this province. The total this month to date, as I think the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Smith) has already said, is 23,000 people laid off, 17,000 of whom are outside the Metro Toronto region.

Some of them are well known to us. In Brampton, for example, McDonnell Douglas last week laid off 550 more, for a total of 2,300; in Port Credit, 2,450 men and women were laid off at the Admiral plant; in Oakville, 3,500 were laid off, and next week that number may swell to 4,800; in St. Catharines, 963 were laid off at General Motors; in Kitchener, 826 were laid off at Budd Canada; in Chatham, 1,200 were laid off; in Brantford at Massey-Ferguson, with which we are all familiar now, we are talking about more than 1,500 laid off and probably another 300 to come; in Windsor, 2,100 Chrysler workers were laid off; in London, 600 more were laid off; at Shop-Rite stores, as we all know, 600 will be laid off; in addition to the fact that 5,300 General Motors workers are being laid off temporarily.

I notice that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business estimates that upwards of 30,000 small businesses may have gone under by the end of this year. That affects regions like Simcoe because it is really small business that forms the nucleus of economic growth in regions like that.

If we talk about the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, we can only do it in the context of interest rates, Reaganomics, and the overall priorities of both the federal and the provincial governments.

I am sure the good burghers of Simcoe and Grey would be very interested to know where this government got a mandate to invest $650 million in an oil company that is not really centred in this province in the first place.

Mr. Boudria: I thought you liked oil companies.

Mr. Samis: I am sure they were very interested to know they voted for a Conservative member whose government, whose party, whose leader, says it is in their best interest to divert funds from small business, agriculture, rural development, health care services and hospital services down to Pennsylvania, to Suncor. We do not control it. It will not create any jobs. It will not give us any real influence in the oil industry, and yet that is the sort of thing we are facing.

If one asks for aid -- whether it is economic development or health services, name any -- no money. They can find $650 million, pay absurd interest rates for that money, and invest it in Suncor. People in the member's region probably need some assistance, but the automobile dealers get the assistance. They get $21 million from the Treasurer of Ontario. We can have the absurd situation of somebody in Orillia buying a lot of cars and getting a rebate from Ontario taxpayers. Obviously not a very good investment for the people of Simcoe who want to be designated under DREE.

What I am saying here is that we have no particular objection to the resolution, but I do stress the very simple fact that DREE's record in the Maritimes, in Quebec, in northern Ontario and parts of Manitoba, makes it extremely clear that it is anything but a godsend. In fact if anyone knows how to screw things up, it is the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.

We were at one time a designated region, and it had a very minimal impact in terms of our getting out of that situation and getting on our feet. The member might be better served by talking to the Treasurer, getting him off his love affair with Reaganomics, getting him to invest money in Ontario small business, agriculture and natural resources instead of Alberta's; getting him to help small business deal with the interest rates and the absolutely devastating effect they are having on small businessmen and farmers in his riding instead of investing in Suncor.

That could be done in Ontario before we go to DREE. Let us clean our own house first before we go and see Pierre De Bané asking for any favours.

Mr. Villeneuve: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak on the resolution put forward by the honourable member for Simcoe East. The DREE program, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, is familiar to me and well known to most of the eastern Ontario people I represent in this Legislature.

This program, with $50 million that Ontario and Ottawa have put in my area, has saved many a farmer in drainage costs and has increased agricultural productivity and financial returns. An economy that was dragging to a halt started to move again. People from all eastern counties, given a fighting chance, choose to stay put, as long as they can earn a decent living and raise their families.

I do not believe in biting the hand that feeds me. I believe we should try to look through the short term and beyond our own backyards at getting a fair deal for all. I know members are not pushing for a subsidiary agreement in southwestern Ontario of the kind we have in the east. That is the business of our Treasurer and the federal government. I think there is a level of co-operation which we may not have had in the past.

I would not want anything to tamper with the delicate balance. I know the House would agree with that. I do think a brief look at the eastern Ontario development agreement, as it unfolds, will shed some light on the principle of this resolution.

In September 1978, the federal government decided, without consulting with any of the provincial Treasurers, to drop the old ARDA program.

5:10 p.m.

In November, Mr. Miller met with the federal minister, and it was agreed that conclusion of an agreement for eastern Ontario was top priority. In January, the Treasurer proposed that a new Department of Regional Economic Expansion agreement --

Mr. McKessock: He said to talk about the priority for the east.

Mr. Villeneuve: -- include Peterborough, Victoria, Haliburton, Muskoka, Grey and northern Simcoe. He felt, as I am sure he does today, that these areas were in need of assistance just as eastern Ontario was, and the bargaining began. The only reason 11 counties of eastern Ontario are included is because DREE covers the whole area around the city of Montreal. I live right next to the border. They are all looked after under DREE. Therefore they had to do something to make it look at least reasonably fair in eastern Ontario. But there are slow-growth areas --

Mr. Boudria: That is not true. All of Ottawa-Carleton --

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Villeneuve: -- that need attention throughout this province.

Mr. Boudria: It is not true.

Mr. Villeneuve: When the honourable member has been here a little while he will know a little bit more than he does now.

Mr. Boudria: That may be so, but to say that Ottawa is not covered under DREE -- do not say it is not.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Villeneuve: Weeks before the agreement was to be formally signed, Ottawa demanded Muskoka and Haliburton be chopped as well. Next the $10 million small business assistance program was to be discarded. That was going too far. Ontario held its ground and refused to sign without the small business program.

Finally, in December of 1979 under the Clark government -- we tried for 18 months with the previous government and they would not even listen -- they signed a $200 million agreement with Quebec. There was no problem as far as financing that, but there was no money for Ontario. Those are the facts.

Mr. McKessock: What has this got to do with the bill?

Mr. Villeneuve: Finally, in December 1979, agreement was reached for the small business program intact. Since then, a great deal has been accomplished. Flood control and land reclamation was a devastating problem in the eastern counties --

The Acting Speaker: Time. The honourable member has exhausted his time.

Mr. Villeneuve: I could go on, Mr. Speaker, to demonstrate benefits, but time does not permit me.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Simcoe East has left three minutes.

Mr. McLean: Mr. Speaker, is that all the time that is left?

The Acting Speaker: It is two minutes that you have now.

Mr. McLean: I know things are fast, but I did not think they were that fast. I just wanted to make a couple of comments with regard to the honourable member from Grey county on the boundaries.

It is very hard to determine, but I picked an area which I thought was the most depressed. Knowing part of the member's riding, and the southern part of Muskoka and the northern part of Simcoe county, it keeps us away from the built-up areas, from Metropolitan Toronto, and I thought that was the area that needed the help most. It was the furthest distance away from markets, it needed the help, and I think the area I have outlined is most in need.

Making sure it goes further and that we continue what we have started, I will be following it up. It will not be left with just the Treasurer or the cabinet. I will be following --

Mr. McKessock: Let us get together and go and talk about it in Ottawa.

Mr. McLean: That is right. We will be talking about it, and I will be getting word very shortly. I hope I can share that with the member when we get something in writing from Mr. De Bané.

LANDLORD AND TENANT AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Boudria moved second reading of Bill 83, An Act to amend the Landlord and Tenant Act.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak on this, the first private member's bill I have had the pleasure to introduce into this great Legislature.

I will try to take less than the time allotted to me so as to allow as many members of this Legislature as possible to participate in this bill. This bill implements the policy that tenants in mobile home parks are entitled to greater protection than ordinary residential tenants. The bill's focus is on the period covered by a notice of termination of a tenancy.

A study conducted by the Alberta Institute of Law Research and Reform supports the principle underlying Bill 83. The study points at the time-consuming, dislocating and expensive problems facing a tenant of a mobile home park when he is given a notice of termination. A new site must be found. This search for an alternative site can be quite difficult.

The Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing recently concluded the lack of available land for mobile homes is one of the main impediments to their development. Because mobile homes are often associated with the travel-trailer image of the past, many municipalities have been reluctant to permit their establishment and they have been relegated to areas considered unsuitable for conventional forms of residential development.

Even if a vacant site exists it may not be within commuting distance of the tenant's place of work. If the site is not available until a date beyond a termination period there are costs of storage and temporary accommodation, and further haulage arrangements must be made.

Tenants commonly invest upwards of $20,000 in mobile homes. A home's value will diminish if neither the owner nor a potential buyer can secure a site on which to rest it, thus termination may mean the sale of a tenant's capital assets, the mobile home, at a reduced price. On the other hand, residential tenants must also pay moving and storage costs; and new rental accommodations may not be easy to obtain.

I would like to talk for a minute about the Ontario legislation. First, various sections of the Landlord and Tenant Act were renumbered for the purpose of the revised statutes of 1980. Accordingly references in Bill 83 to sections 100, 103, 103a, 103b and 103d should now refer to sections 100 to 105 and 107. The new section 114a should be renumbered as section 128a if it is to be included at the end of the part on mobile home parks.

Part VII of the Residential Tenancies Act regulates tenancies in mobile home parks. Section 69(1) applies when a landlord seeks an order terminating a tenancy. The landlord must require possession of the rental unit for his own use, a purchaser's use, demolition, a change of use or extensive repairs. He must make reasonable effort to find an alternative site of similar character, convenience and cost to which the tenant may move his mobile home or on which the tenant may purchase, lease or otherwise obtain the use of a mobile home. Under certain conditions the landlord must pay the tenant's reasonable expenses in moving his mobile home to another site. These provisions have not been proclaimed in force yet.

In addition, on May 28, 1981, the Supreme Court of Canada, in reference to the Residential Tenancies Act, ruled that 36 provisions of the act were ultra vires of the Legislature. They include sections of Part VII. The power of the Residential Tenancy Commission to order the eviction of tenants and require landlords and tenants to comply with obligations imposed under the act offend against limitations contained in section 96 of the British North America Act.

In California, under the mobile home residency law, management must give written notice of at least 60 days in order to terminate a tenancy. Tenancies can be terminated only for a reason specified in article 6. One of these reasons, a change of use in the park, is subject to three conditions:

First, the management must give the tenant at least 15 days' notice it will be appearing before a local governmental board, commission or body to request a permit for this change of use.

Second, after making this initial application the management must give the tenant at least 12 months' notice of the proposed change. This 12-month period is extended if all required permits have not been obtained. Then the usual 60 days' notice must be given. If no permits are required then notice must be given at least 12 months before the termination for that change of use will occur.

Finally, the management cannot terminate the tenancy unless it has given notice to each proposed tenant before the inception of his tenancy that it is requesting a change of use or that a change has been granted.

These conditions comprise part of the unique protection afforded mobile home owners in California. Protection is needed because of the high cost of moving mobile homes, the potential damage resulting therefrom, the requirements relating to the installation of mobile homes and the cost of landscaping or lot preparation.

5:20 p.m.

According to Frank Young, Executive Director of the Canadian Manufactured Housing Institute, formerly called the Canadian Mobile Home Association, there are about 140 mobile home parks in Ontario. Most are near small towns and in rural areas. There are approximately 42,000 to 45,000 mobile homes in the province.

Members can see there are many people affected by this bill. Several studies indicate that mobile home dwellers are not really very mobile. A Thunder Bay study showed that 72 per cent had not moved their homes in the previous five years. Research in Brandon, Manitoba, concluded that 55 per cent of the mobile home owners regarded their residency as permanent. American statistics reveal that mobile home owners move only once every 5.7 years as compared with every 5.2 years for people who live in conventional houses.

I will terminate my presentation at this time to allow other honourable members to participate in the debate. I would like to reserve three minutes at the termination.

The Deputy Speaker: You have approximately 10 minutes. Three minutes is fine then and we will divide the time accordingly.

Mr. Wildman: I want to welcome the member for Prescott-Russell as an ally in what has been a rather lonely fight on behalf of mobile home owners since I was first elected in 1975.

Mr. Boudria: You needed the help.

Mr. Wildman: I will ignore that. This has been of special interest to me because about 12 per cent of all the mobile homes in Ontario are in my riding. I might say that prior to my election in 1975 for some reason the whole issue of protection for mobile home owners was not even mentioned in this House.

Prior to that time, the former Landlord and Tenant Act did not even mention mobile homes. The sections cited by my colleague from Prescott-Russell are the result of hard work that has been done by committees over the past few years. I am happy to say that the amendments that have now been incorporated in the Landlord and Tenant Act and in the Residential Tenancies Act are as a result of work that I and my colleagues have done and amendments that have been proposed by me in committee. There is no question that while we have improved the situation of mobile home owners in this province over and above the very little protection or lack of protection they had before, there is much more to be done. I was quite sincere when I said I welcomed the amendment proposed here this afternoon.

Mobile home owners in this province have suffered from a kind of gipsy image which is most unfair and inaccurate. Many people have felt mobile home owners are people who live in trailers. Many people use the two terms synonymously, when as a result of a number of objections I raised there has actually been a differentiation made in the act in terms of the definition.

As my colleague mentioned very few mobile home owners are actually mobile. Most mobile homes, as opposed to the tenants or residents in the mobile homes, as he mentioned, never move once they are first located. Studies have shown that about 90 per cent of the mobiles in this country remain on the first site on which they are located.

The problem that many mobile home owners experience though is that unlike other home owners or residents in rental accommodation, they are sort of in a halfway house. They own their own home, in most cases, but they do not own the land on which it is located. The situation one faces is that if the mobile home owner is evicted from his tenancy in a mobile home park, he owns his home but he does not have a site on which to locate it.

As a result of this, we find terrible situations. I understand that five or six years ago in Niagara Falls there was an owner who had a mobile home park located on his land. He decided he was going to change the use of the land and develop a shopping centre on that location. The bulldozers were coming in to prepare the site for a shopping centre and some of the mobiles were still located there with people living in them because they had nowhere to go.

Mr. Boudria: That is happening in my riding too.

Mr. Wildman: That is one of the major problems we have. The problem is that when a mobile home park owner decides he wants to change the use and thus evict the people who are renting from him, most of the people have nowhere to go because there are not enough sites in the area or for that matter in the province. That has meant mobile home park tenants have been left open to threats and intimidation from some unscrupulous mobile home park owners.

Despite the changes we have been able to bring about in the Landlord and Tenant Act in the sections dealing specifically with mobile home parks, mobile home park tenants are still subject to threats and intimidation. They know in the last resort the landlord could say, "I am going to change the use of my land. I am going to give you the notice that is required by the Landlord and Tenant Act and evict you. You better do what I say or that is what I am going to do." As a result, mobile home park tenants do not appeal to rent review because they are afraid they will be evicted.

When the Residential Tenancies Act was before the House I introduced a number of amendments in the committee to try to assist mobile home park tenants who were facing eviction in this way. Section 69 of that act deals specifically with that situation. The purpose of the amendment was to try to ensure that a mobile home park owner who was genuinely trying to change the use of his land would use every possible means to locate sites for the owners of the mobile homes in his park. He would have had to pay the transportation costs of moving from his park to the new site.

I regret very much that despite the fact that amendment was accepted unanimously by the committee and passed, and then passed in this House, for some reason this government has chosen not to have that section as well as some other sections of the act proclaimed.

It makes a mockery out of the claim by this government in a policy paper published a number of years ago by the Ministry of Housing that saw mobile homes as a legitimate alternative form of low-cost housing in this province, especially in rural areas where there is not the rental accommodation that might exist in some urban areas. If the government really believes mobile home parks are a legitimate form of rental accommodation that should be encouraged in this province, as that policy paper says, why on earth has it chosen not to proclaim the portion of the act that would protect the residents living in those mobile home parks? I do not understand it.

The act was proclaimed in 1979 and we are still awaiting the proclamation of the rest of it. That means mobile home park owners could still threaten eviction and intimidate their tenants. Even if they are not that kind of landlord, even if they have some other legitimate use for their park, if they are going into another business or something, the mobile home park tenants are still left vulnerable.

For that reason, I congratulate the member for Prescott-Russell who introduced this amendment. It has my wholehearted support. If we are to protect mobile home park tenants, we must ensure that if there is going to be a change in the use of the land on which their mobiles are located they have the lead time necessary to find an alternative site on which to locate their homes. We cannot leave mobile home park tenants dependent upon the caprice of landlords who wish to ship them around at will in order to get what they want.

I hope as many members as possible will support this amendment. If the bill itself does not pass third reading I hope the government will act on the amendments already in the Landlord and Tenant Act and the Residential Tenancies Act that have not yet been proclaimed and will pass an amendment along the lines suggested by the member for Prescott-Russell to give real protection once and for all to mobile home park residents.

5:30 p.m.

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to comment on the bill tabled by the member for Prescott-Russell. I sympathize with the difficulties that tenants living in mobile home parks encounter when forced to relocate. However, extending the notice period from the current 120 days to 365 days is not, in my opinion, going to help them find an alternative housing site; in fact, the opposite could occur. The current --

Mr. Wildman: What about the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché)? He had a case in Kapuskasing.

Mr. Kolyn: Will the member wait a minute? We listened to him; let's just hear the other side.

The current period of 120 days is more than adequate to find an alternative housing site, if such a site exists.

Mr. Wildman: Underline that last phrase.

Mr. Kolyn: I just said it: if such a site exists. Certainly the honourable member will agree that a one-year period is excessive. It would also mean that if it took a year to evict one mobile home unit out of a park, one could have a tenant who was unruly and disturbing and it would take a year to get rid of him.

Clearly the problem lies in finding an alternative site. If a tenant has not been fortunate in finding an alternative park site for his home in four months, an additional eight months will not be of any benefit. If a site is not available within a certain radius of where the tenant is willing to relocate, then extending the notice period is not going to be of any significance. In most circumstances the park from which a tenant is forced to vacate is only within a 100-mile radius.

Another serious problem the tenant faces in finding an alternative site is the prevailing attitude of municipalities. Our municipalities are not particularly enthusiastic in zoning land for mobile home parks. The municipal attitude towards mobile homes in the main is an impediment to their development. Because mobile homes are often associated with the travel-trailer image of the past, many municipalities have been reluctant to permit their establishment. In most municipalities mobile homes have been relegated to areas considered unsuitable for conventional forms of residential development, thus perpetuating a negative image.

Strict zoning laws and building codes have also restricted mobile home parks to designated areas. Of course, attitudes and regulations concerning mobile homes vary from municipality to municipality. In general they have not been favourable. Our government has taken the position that mobile homes should be treated like other forms of conventional housing. Municipalities should follow our example. Through its planning controls a municipality can promote the acceptance of mobile homes as a legitimate form of housing.

Mobile homes, like all forms of development, require public facilities and services. They need adequate roads, waste disposal systems, water supply and services such as schools, parks and shopping. Mobile home developments need to be planned in the same manner as other forms of housing and local official plans and zoning bylaws should contain provisions which regulate their location and site planning.

Returning to the plight of the tenant who is forced to relocate, if the tenant is fortunate in the sense that another mobile park site is nearby, it does not necessarily follow that the tenant will be accepted at the new site. Since most land owners of mobile home parks couple their site rentals with mobile home sales and repairs, they prefer that the new tenant purchase a mobile home from them instead of bringing their own units. Some park owners make the purchase of a mobile home from them a condition of renting a site in the park.

The transportation and installation of mobile homes are most important considerations in relocating. Mobile homes are factory built, single-family dwellings designed to be placed on a permanent foundation and connected to utilities. Such mobile homes are usually marketed without land. They are transported from the factory site, often via a dealer. In most cases the delivery of a mobile home is included in the initial price. Placement of a mobile home on a permanent foundation and connection to utilities is most logically handled by the dealer; therefore, the initial purchase price usually includes proper blocking, an extremely important part of setting up a mobile home on the site.

In a situation where the tenant is forced to relocate, he is forced to incur transportation costs as well as proper installation costs, often at a high cost.

This brings me to another reason why I am not supporting the bill tabled by the member for Prescott-Russell. Our government is both aware and sensitive to the difficulties and high costs a tenant of a mobile home encounters when forced to relocate.

Section 69 of the Residential Tenancies Act states, "If a tenant is forced to leave a mobile home park because of demolition or extensive repairs to the park, then the landlord shall make every reasonable effort to find an alternative site of similar character, convenience and cost" --

Mr. Wildman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The section of the act the member is quoting has never been proclaimed and he is quoting it as if it is law.

Mr. Kolyn: We are coming to the answer he is waiting for.

Mr. McClellan: You will run out of time first.

Mr. Kolyn: I hope not because he wants the answer, but I will send him the answer any way.

I will carry on, "lease or otherwise obtain the use of a mobile home." Further, section 69 states, "The Residential Tenancy Commission may make an order requiring the landlord to pay all or part of the tenant's reasonable expenses in moving his mobile home to another site."

Unfortunately, part of the Residential Tenancies Act, including section 69, has been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The decision of the Supreme Court to rule sections of the Residential Tenancies Act unconstitutional was based on the transfer of jurisdiction from the county courts to a provincial commission to decide disputes between landlord and tenants.

Our government is currently considering new legislation, which would include the substantive part of the Residential Tenancies Act, including section 69. Until that legislation is introduced, it is inappropriate to make amendments to the Landlord and Tenant Act.

The amendments the member is asking for will not solve the problem of finding alternative sites for tenants of mobile homes who are forced to relocate.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Essex South. I would like to remind the member he only has five minutes, to allow his colleague his remaining three minutes.

Mr. Mancini: That is too bad, Mr. Speaker, because I have a lot of good things to say about Bill 83.

I commend my colleague the member for Prescott-Russell for introducing this private legislation. It is evident the member for Lakeshore does not have any mobile home parks in his riding, because he speaks as if he does not know any of the realities of the situation. My colleague the member for Essex North (Mr. Ruston) and I do have mobile home parks in our ridings. We have had quite a few difficulties over the past several years and we have both been trying to work on a set of solutions to help and protect the mobile home owners in these parks.

I wish to bring to the attention of the House that, for the past three years at least, I have been having correspondence with appropriate officials in the government concerning better protection for mobile home owners; for example, protection as far as their property taxes are concerned. We are all aware they pay the property taxes to the landlord and then the landlord turns the taxes over to the municipality.

However, if the landlord gets into financial trouble he is usually late with his taxes. He could end up in receivership and, therefore, the mobile home owners are not protected even though they paid their property taxes.

That is one issue I have been following up. I wish to say the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has now taken my suggestion and it is going to have an intergovernmental task force look into some of the many problems I have brought to the ministry's attention, the one I mention being a very important one.

Getting back to the specifics of this bill, may I say I am once again disappointed that in the private members' hour the government members are getting up and saying, "our government's position," "our government's policy," "our government's this and that." We are slowly but surely taking away from the private members' hour any individuality it had for any of the members who wished to participate.

This is the second week in a row now where I have heard a government member get up and say, "our government's position." This is not government's hour, this is private members' hour.

5:40 p.m.

The member for Prescott-Russell has brought to the attention of the House certain problems and certain solutions for those problems. We do not want to hear government propaganda. We want to know what the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes) thinks; we want to know what the member for Cochrane North has to say on an individual basis; the member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman); the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) and the member for Wentworth (Mr. Dean). Do they not have any individual thoughts at all? Not at all? All we hear is the government propaganda.

The member for Lakeshore and others should realize that mobile home owners have special problems. Number one, they usually own the building in which they reside but must rent the property. How are they to find a new piece of property on which to move a home with only 120 days' notice? We are all aware of the acute shortness of mobile home sites in Ontario. That is the number one problem; it is impossible.

The number two problem is mobile home owners are not treated fairly by banks and financial institutions. They are unable to go to a bank and get a regular mortgage. They have to go in and get a chattel mortgage at a significantly higher rate. These are usually on a demand basis. These are some of the problems they are faced with.

Mr. Speaker, I notice you are informing me I have one minute left. I have a couple of other points.

Because these people are unable to get regular mortgages and the chattel mortgages are at a higher rate, it is even more difficult for them to sell their mobile homes. If someone has been asked to move from a property and is trying to sell his home to go into an apartment or other accommodation, these restrictions make it more difficult to sell the home. That is why one needs more than 120 days. These are practical reasons that real people have to go through, these practical problems they have to live with. These people deserve our protection and our assistance. That is why those members were elected to the House, to help people.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I will try to summarize very briefly. First, I express my disappointment in the member for Lakeshore. I would have hoped some members of the Conservative caucus who have mobile homes in their ridings would have spoken on this issue.

I feel it is inadequate to hear a member from downtown Toronto speak on this. I will be the first one to admit --

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: The member for St. George (Ms. Fish) represents downtown Toronto, not me.

Mr. Boudria: I will be the first one to recognize this is a Band-Aid solution. We need a lot more than that to help out mobile home owners. What we need is a government that will care about that type of housing. We need to establish a task force that can go around the province. I would invite that member to join that task force where he would learn something about mobile homes.

Everything he recited today was either erroneous or totally false. He cited portions of acts that were not even proclaimed, and all kinds of nonsense like that. He talked about evictions, which are covered in the bill, and he said they were not. I feel it was unfortunate this member spoke on this bill.

I will try to end very briefly. There are very relevant provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act that have not been proclaimed. I know they would address some of the problems in this but not all of them. California legislation imposes a minimum 12-month notice period before the management can terminate a tenancy on the grounds of change of use of a park. Surely we can afford the same protection for the citizens of Ontario. We are not asking for something that does not have any precedent the world over. We are asking for something that exists elsewhere.

Maybe the honourable member for Lakeshore did not know that, or the person who wrote that speech for him did not know that, but he must have heard it when I said it.

As the member for Algoma said, in the past residents of mobile home parks were treated like gipsies. I think it is the attitude of this government today that they are still going to treat them like that. Let us give some permanence to that type of resident. At least they will be able to know that they can live in one place for a minimum of one year without being evicted. Surely that is normal for somebody who owns his own house. Maybe they do not own the land it is on, but they own their own house. Yet they have no assurance that they will be there for any length of time.

I will send a copy of this debate to all mobile home parks in Ontario to let the residents know of the arrogance of this government towards that type of housing.

REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Speaker: Mr. McLean has moved resolution 29.

Those in favour will please say "aye."

Those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Resolution concurred in.

Mr. Mancini: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I am sure we all realize that once the appropriate minister in this government contacts the appropriate minister in the federal government, if he does not give Department of Regional Economic Expansion funds, the Treasurer of Ontario will give the funds.

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

LANDLORD AND TENANT AMENDMENT ACT

The following members having objected by rising, a vote was not taken on Bill 83:

Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Brandt, Cousens, Dean, Eaton, Elgie, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Havrot, Hodgson, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk, McCaffrey, McLean, McMurtry, McNeil, Piché, Ramsay, Runciman, Scrivener, Sheppard, Stevenson, K. R., Treleaven, Watson, Williams, Wiseman -- 32.

5:50 p.m.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate the business of the House for tonight, Friday and next week. Tonight, we will deal with legislation of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) as printed on today's Order Paper, then if time permits we will be proceeding to Bills 107, 104 and 125 standing in the name of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry). Tomorrow, we will deal with the estimates of the Ministry of Revenue, and on

Monday, November 30, we will deal with the estimates of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs.

On Monday evening, the committee of the whole will sit on Bill 7, standing in the name of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie). Tuesday afternoon and Tuesday evening, the committee of the whole will continue to deal with Bill 7 then, if time permits, with legislation that is not completed tonight.

On Wednesday, the usual three committees may meet in the morning: general government, resources development and justice. On Thursday afternoon, we will deal with private members' ballot items 21 and 22, standing in the names of the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) and the member for Oriole (Mr. Williams). On Thursday evening, we will resume the adjourned debate on the motion for adoption of the recommendations contained in the first report of the select committee on pensions. On Friday, the estimates of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs will be dealt with.

I might also inform the members of the House -- because I made a statement slightly in the opposite vein the other day -- it has been decided that we will not have a special debate in the House in regard to the constitutional resolution, but that the matter of the constitution will be dealt with in the estimates of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs, the estimates of the Premier (Mr. Davis), which are yet to come, and the estimates of the Attorney General, which are beginning in committee tomorrow.

RESPONSE TO PETITION

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to table the response to petition, sessional paper 263, standing on the Notice Paper. [See Hansard for Friday, November 27.]

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

November 26, 1981