Hansard Transcripts 1984-Nov-22 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, just before you call the first order, I want to introduce to you and the members of the House a political colleague of ours, Vince MacLean, a member of the Legislative Assembly of Nova Scotia, from Sydney.

USE OF TIME FOR ESTIMATES

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Standing order 48(b) says, "The chairman of a committee considering estimates shall apportion the time available among the minister, opposition critics and other members."

I would like to point out that yesterday we spent five solid hours listening to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) present his opening statement. We had already cut back the Labour estimates from 22 hours to 18 hours. I consider it a gross misuse of the time of members of the House to listen to a minister read his statement for five hours. It is certainly a misuse of the intent of the estimates of this House.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to look into the matter because I think the standing orders of the House are being violated with that kind of ridiculousness. I do not know what we are paying the members for if it is just to sit there for five hours listening to a minister reading an opening statement.

Mr. Speaker: As the honourable member is well aware, that does not constitute a point of order because the Speaker does not have any jurisdiction over what goes on in the standing committees.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

MINISTRY REORGANIZATION

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I am sure members of the House will acknowledge that health care is a major priority of this government, representing as it does 30.6 per cent of our estimated total provincial expenditures in this current fiscal year. I believe they will also recognize that the provision of health care services in Ontario is one of the most widely accepted and approved-of government-funded programs.

In recent years, however, we have seen several important pressures coming to bear on the health care system. Our need to provide appropriate services for a growing elderly population, the development of costly high technologies in surgical and diagnostic procedures, our need to keep pace with rapid advances in care for the mentally ill, and the rising utilization of health care services are just a few of the pressures I might mention. Therefore, it is going to require a great deal of skill and foresight on our part to continue to manage effectively this health care system in an environment of change and with finite financial resources.

In order to position the Ministry of Health to deal with these challenges, I am announcing today a ministry reorganization, which I am convinced will give us a solid foundation to meet the future with every confidence.

The primary objectives of the reorganization are: a renewed impetus in the development of public health programs, nursing home services and the provision of appropriate mental health care in the province; a recognition of the major role played by the hospital sector in the Ontario health care system and its impact on the province's spending priorities; the maintenance of strong financial management and accountability within the health care system; and a more equitable distribution of senior executive responsibility within the Ministry of Health.

Several weeks ago I announced the creation of the Ontario Implementation Group on Health Promotion and Disease Prevention under the chairmanship of Steve Podborski. It has been given a mandate to bring to me recommendations for specific actions and programs concerning the whole range of promotion and prevention activities. In order that we can now move ahead and develop the appropriate health promotion and disease prevention initiatives, I wish to inform the members that the new office of health promotion has now been established within the ministry.

Dr. Boyd Suttie has been appointed chief of the office of health promotion and brings to this position an extensive experience in public health and wide knowledge of government operations. He is assembling a team of talented and capable people from within the ministry to work with him, and I expect the office of health promotion to be fully operational as early as December 3.

I hate to interrupt the debate that is taking place under the gallery.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I have to ask the people under the gallery to please limit their conversations.

Mr. Nixon: He is just breaking the news that all the Brantford delegates are for the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman).

Hon. Mr. Norton: The member thinks he is going to unnerve me, does he not?

Mr. Speaker, the office of health promotion has been given responsibility for the co-ordination of all health promotion and disease prevention programs across all branches and divisions of the ministry. Dr. Suttie has been assigned the necessary authority to carry out this mandate and will report directly to the deputy minister.

The office of health promotion and the Ontario implementation group under Steve Podborski will now work in close association to develop the programs, policies and support services that I expect will enable us to make major gains in raising health levels within our society.

In addition to creating the new office of health promotion, the divisions of responsibility among assistant deputy ministers in the ministry are also to be realigned.

Mr. Randy Reid has been appointed assistant deputy minister of institutional health. Mr. Reid will be responsible for the operation and funding of public and private hospitals, the management of the ministry's hospital planning and capital finance programs, and the development of policy and service directions within the hospital sector.

Dr. Dennis Psutka has been appointed assistant deputy minister, emergency services, laboratories and drug programs. Dr. Psutka will have responsibility for the development, direction and co-ordination of comprehensive emergency health services in the province. He will also oversee the operation and maintenance of the ministry's public health laboratories, the operation of the Ontario drug benefit program and the publication of the drug index-drug benefit formulary.

Mr. Darwin Kealey will continue as assistant deputy minister, community and public health. Mr. Kealey's management responsibilities will include the public health sector. He will be responsible for nursing home operations, the development of community health programs throughout the province, as well as the underserviced-area program and French-language services. He will continue to be responsible for information and systems.

In recognition of the priority being assigned to nursing home services, a new nursing home branch will be created. This will provide us with a focus for the effective development of nursing home care in Ontario and ensure compliance with nursing home regulations through licensing, inspections and enforcement procedures.

Mr. David Corder has been appointed assistant deputy minister for mental health. Mr. Corder's responsibilities will include the administration of the province's 10 psychiatric hospitals, the development of community-based mental health programs and liaison with community services agencies, and the development of long-range policy and planning for mental health care.

2:10 p.m.

Ron LeNeveu will continue as assistant deputy minister, administration, finance and health insurance. Mr. LeNeveu will provide senior management and direction for all ministry programs related to administrative and financial services, the Ontario health insurance plan, human resources development within the ministry and the affirmative action program.

In summary, my ministry's five major divisions as a result of this reorganization are: institutional health, under Assistant Deputy Minister Randy Reid; emergency services, laboratories and drug programs, under Assistant Deputy Minister Dennis Psutka; community and public health, under Assistant Deputy Minister Darwin Kealey; mental health, under Assistant Deputy Minister David Corder; and administration, finance and health insurance, under Assistant Deputy Minister Ron LeNeveu.

I believe this organization will give the ministry the means and scope to deal effectively with health care challenges of both the present day and the future. With the talent and leadership abilities we have in all these appointments, I am confident the ministry will continue to provide the people of Ontario with the high level of health care services they are accustomed to expect.

OPP PENSION FUND

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that a supplementary pension benefits fund will be established for members of the Ontario Provincial Police. The fund will provide for retirement on full accrued pension after 30 years of service and the attainment of age 50, based on actual years of service at retirement. This will bring pensions for members of the OPP into line with those available to police in the municipalities who are members of the Ontario municipal employees retirement system, better known as OMERS.

The cost of this supplementary pension benefit will be shared. Members of the OPP will be required to contribute two per cent of salary in addition to their current contributions to the public service superannuation fund and the government will pay a similar amount. The plan will come into force on January 1, 1985, or on the date of proclamation of Bill 54, whichever is later.

This is a well-deserved benefit to a force that serves this province with dedication and distinction.

FAMINE RELIEF

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, the people of Ontario and the members of this House have been horrified by the tragedy taking place in Ethiopia and in other countries of the Sahel region of Africa. The world has been witness in recent weeks, through graphic television reports, to the sufferings of millions of people as a result of the worst famine in recent years. Peoples and governments of the developed world have been enormously moved by this tragic situation and I do not have to tell the members of this House of the tremendous response from Ontario residents who have given most generously to many private fund-raising initiatives.

Today I would like to report to the House on the steps this government will be taking immediately in conjunction with the federal government and the Canadian Red Cross. The government of Ontario has consistently supported the efforts of the Canadian Red Cross Society in its action to relieve the suffering of disaster victims across the world. In continuation of this practice, we will provide $100,000 to the Red Cross which will help support its current programs in Ethiopia and elsewhere in Africa. This brings to $150,000 the total moneys granted to the Red Cross this year by the Ontario government for relief programs which include assistance to African drought victims.

Last week I told the House that Ontario would be co-operating with the government of Canada in a national effort to provide assistance to Ethiopia. Today I would like to tell the House that we will purchase 5,000 tonnes of wheat from Ontario farmers as a contribution towards the total Canadian food assistance program for Africa. The cost to the Ontario government will be approximately $1 million. The Canadian International Development Agency, or CIDA as it is commonly known, will assume all responsibility for handling and transportation of the grain and will ensure that it will reach those in need.

The grant to the Red Cross and the Ontario wheat purchase are strong indications of this government's concern on behalf of all the people of Ontario. These actions, combined with the generous contributions made privately by Ontario residents and the government of Canada's very excellent program, will bring Canada's total contribution to the African relief program second only to that of the United States of America.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SCOTIABANK TOWER

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing with respect to his speedy signing of the official plan amendment for the Scotiabank tower development.

I gather from press reports the minister was not aware of the secret deal, the $2-million payment that was made by Campeau to overcome the objections of a particular group. Why would he not ask questions? Why would he move so hastily? Had he been aware, would he have signed that amendment as quickly as he did?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me suggest that I did not move with great haste. I moved at the normal speed in approving that type of operation.

I was advised by the applicants that the objections had been withdrawn -- and this sort of thing happens on a fairly regular basis. When objections are withdrawn, the minister has the prerogative of so advising the Ontario Municipal Board, saying the case is being withdrawn from the board. As a normal procedure, the minister signs the amendments to the official plan at the same time, and this was done in the Campeau case.

I am not going to answer anything to the hypothetical situation put by the Leader of the Opposition in the second part of his question.

Mr. Peterson: The minister may not understand it, but there are important questions of public morality here. Surely he has a responsibility to involve himself in that question.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please

Mr. Peterson: The behaviour of the developer, the politicians in the case and the intervening group at the time are open to question and the integrity of the entire planning process is at stake here.

Would he not agree that his first responsibility is to make the details of this whole deal public? Then the press and the people who care about public morality could draw their conclusions as to what exactly transpired here and we could learn lessons about what our real responsibilities are. Is that not the place for him to start?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: My responsibility is to answer for this as it relates to the Planning Act -- whether the actions taken are in accordance with the Planning Act and my responsibilities under the act. That is exactly what I did. I read in the newspaper about certain deals that had been made between Mr. Campeau and his corporation, the Bank of Nova Scotia and the co-op organization in this community. I am not sure what part the three aldermen had to play in it. I am not one bit sure of that.

Mr. Peterson: Why did the minister not find out?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Just a moment.

I did say to the press -- and I am sure members read it in the press and heard it on television -- that as a result of a letter from the mayor and the planning director of Toronto, I asked the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) to review the situation. I asked him to see whether there were any outstanding legal problems in whatever took place.

But very clearly it does not relate to the Planning Act. It was a whole different matter, involving the conduct of what went on between two private organizations, the co-op people and the Campeau Corp., and it happened to be in order. It did not impact on the Planning Act.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, the minister cannot play fast and loose with reputations like that. If it does not have anything to do with the Planning Act, will he please tell us what acts he thinks have been infringed? Why would he have referred the matter to the Attorney General unless he was prepared to come into this House and say exactly what it is that he is worried about? The minister should not throw names around. He should not throw around references to the Attorney General unless he has something specific on his mind. If he has, he should tell us what it is.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, if I had not referred it to the Attorney General I would have been asked why I did not. I took the opportunity to ask him to look into the matter. I am not throwing any aspersions on anyone.

Mr. Rae: The minister certainly is.

2:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I am not. I am asking for clarification of the whole situation from the Attorney General. Indeed, the people in my own ministry are looking at other aspects, but I am not throwing any aspersions, nor am I condemning anyone.

I agree with the Leader of the Liberal Party that, if what has transpired is correct, it certainly has long-term implications for planning in other communities. It could aid and abet a use of the Ontario Municipal Board for a purpose for which it was never intended.

I said very clearly to the press I do not think people should put in objections in order to try to use it as a fund-raising process. I made that very clear as the minister reporting for planning.

Mr. Peterson: All the politicians or developers should use this device to make their own private deals. Who knows where that will lead? Surely the minister has a responsibility to find out all the facts and to air this matter.

I am not suggesting there is anything criminal in the circumstances, but it does point to a very serious potential abuse of planning for sale, to quote the commissioner himself.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: When it is a matter of planning for sale, then the minister has a responsibility whether he likes it or not.

I am asking the minister two things. One, will he make the facts of this case public so we can all learn and at least know what the issues at stake are? Two, will he develop with his officials a new rule so this kind of perceived abuse will not go on again?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The response to the latter part of the question is exactly the reason I have asked my people responsible for municipal affairs and planning and also staff in the Ministry of the Attorney General whether there could be some changes to the act that could restrict this type of movement.

I want to suggest very clearly to this House that we should never try to cut off our nose to spite our face, because the municipalities have also taken the opportunity to leverage developers into making special deals as a result of going or threatening to go to the municipal board.

Leveraging has been used many times. I am not without the knowledge of that, nor is the Leader of the Opposition. We have heard it, seen it and watched it under various plans across this province. I think it parallels very closely the ability of a union to threaten its employer with a strike. The same thing applies to municipalities in dealing with a developer or individuals dealing with a developer.

As to the first part of the member's question, I have no further facts. I was not privy to the agreement among the parties, if there happens to be an agreement, and I do not know any of the other facts. If he wishes more information, he will have to get it from another source.

Mr. Peterson: I would just ask how far it goes and when it is going to end.

EMISSION DISCHARGES

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment about the solid waste reduction unit in Hamilton. The minister will be aware that the engineering is now in place to clean up most of the emissions from that factory. With proper co-operation it can be brought pretty much up to scratch. The issue now is the holdup in funding.

Why is the minister not proceeding immediately to address this problem by making provincial funds available to add to those of the region and to federal funds coming in through the forest industry renewable energy program as well as through Tricil's contribution?

Would the minister not agree that time is of the essence so we do not miss a construction year? Why would he not show his generosity by moving immediately to a resolution of that question?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, the controls on that plant have been reviewed by my ministry for some time. It is under controls at the moment, the limitation being of the order of some 500 tonnes per day so that the plant is operating in an environmentally safe manner.

With respect to the question of why we are not proceeding with the retrofit of the plant to improve the existing facility, the total cost of that retrofitting would be about $12 million.

I do not have the figures right in front of me but, as I recall, the federal government contribution would be something in the order of $2 million.

Mr. Peterson: It is $2.4 million.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: The Leader of the Opposition informs me it is $2.4 million, and I believe that figure to be correct. The region's contribution would also be in that order. At the moment, both other levels of government are looking to the province to pick up the balance of the funding.

I do not know that is necessarily fair or equitable in the circumstances. We are looking at some ways of bringing about some of the modifications to that plant for less than $12 million. We hope we will be able to do that. If $12 million is going to be required to bring that plant up to an acceptable level, I say to honourable members very openly and clearly I am going to sit down and negotiate a reasonable deal for Ontario, a fair share for us to carry in the circumstances.

Mr. Peterson: What is that fair share? How much money is the minister prepared to put on the table? Why is he delaying and not getting on with these negotiations? I am told the regional council may vote on December 3 to close down Swaru if some plan is not agreed on for a cleanup of the dioxin and furan emissions by that time.

As the minister knows, the regional council has been losing patience on this issue. The engineering studies are in place, the federal commitments are in place and the Tricil commitments are in place. The minister knows also that the federal commitments may expire by the completion date of March 1987 and that if we do not have these two years or so to build the plants we could lose the federal contribution.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: Time is very much of the essence. Why will the minister not put some money on the table to proceed with this worthwhile project? Surely that is his responsibility. Why can he not go in and make a deal with the region right away? Why does he have to hold them up for everything?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I met with the region earlier in the year and I am prepared to meet with it again. It is interesting to note that the contribution on the part of the federal government -- and this was established by the previous administration, I might add -- was locked to a figure of $2.4 million before we had any knowledge whatever of what the gross cost of the retrofit of that facility was going to be.

I am quite prepared to sit down and negotiate, as this province is always willing to do, a fair deal for all parties. All we are asking of the members is to be patient with us until such time as I have had an opportunity to meet with the federal Minister of the Environment. This meeting is going to occur tomorrow.

I will be meeting the federal minister on this issue and many other issues. I hope to be able to report back to the Hamilton-Wentworth regional council about some form of solution. I am concerned about the problem as well, but I want to make it clear there are no environmental problems with respect to Swaru at the present time.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, the minister must be aware that that is not the perception of the people in the east end of Hamilton around Swaru. Is the minister aware that almost 50 per cent of the residents in this area believe there is an environmental problem? They can hand him almost on a daily basis bags of particles and dust. We also know there have been dioxins coming out of that stack.

Is the minister aware that the feeling in the neighbourhood is such that if he does not move very quickly, there is going to be a great public demand to shut down the operation? Surely the minister understands that this is the kind of prototype operation he has been encouraging in Ontario. I think it is essential and I would ask the minister to move immediately on funding the improvement of this operation.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I am as eager to get on with the work as the members are. The difficulty I have is that I have to come up with the amount of money that is going to be required in a way in which I can justify it to the taxpayers of Ontario.

Mr. Reed: Justify it? Prepare to get moving.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: We are prepared to get moving, but we want to know that we are going to move in the right direction to give the best cost-benefit and return to the people of this province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I do not think there is anything wrong with that.

We do encourage incineration operations in this province. We are quite interested in making sure that plant is operating not only in a fashion that is acceptable, but also in a fashion that is acceptable to the people who live adjacent to the plant.

I am concerned about it as well. We spent a lot of money to come to grips with the answers to the problems of Swaru. We are getting close to some solutions now, and I will be able to report to the House shortly on what some of those solutions are.

Mr. Peterson: Is the minister saying he is not satisfied with the engineering and that he is not satisfied it is the most cost-effective approach in spite of the MacLaren study, which has been accepted by most of the experts on the matter, recognizing that this retrofit will cost about $12 million? Is he prepared to proceed immediately?

He should also recognize that, if we do not get moving probably by March 1985, we could lose the federal contribution and the whole project could be out the window. What I am trying to impress upon him is that time is of the essence.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: Why will the minister not at least split the outstanding difference with the region, which would come to either $3.8 million or $4 million for the province? By getting moving right away, we will get into this construction year and we will not get caught in construction inflation. It will also solve a problem that has been festering for a decade now. Surely that is a reasonable approach. Why does the minister not do it?

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I am quite prepared to get on with the solution to the problem and to pick up some of the additional costs, but in order to move this particular project along as expeditiously as possible, the province is not prepared to pick up all the additional cost. That is why I suggested to the member in my earlier answer that I want to sit down and negotiate a settlement with all the parties.

I will mention one thing that is an unknown in this whole factor at the moment. The private sector company, Tricil, which is involved as one of the parties in addition to the three levels of government, may have some opportunity to increase the revenues that would be generated by that operation through increased throughput of garbage from either Hamilton-Wentworth or some other municipality.

That is the possibility. The member knows the location of a lot of garbage on his side of the House. I know that to be a fact. He may want to recommend some locations to Hamilton-Wentworth.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, let it be shown that the throughput goes in this direction and then back again.

Mr. Speaker: Now for your question.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Deputy Premier concerning the report by Judge Abella to the federal government on equality in employment. That report contains an absolutely devastating critique of the approach of this government, which is the voluntary approach, to fairness in employment.

On page 197, she says: "It is difficult to see how a voluntary approach ... will substantially improve employment opportunities for women, native people, disabled persons or visible minorities. Given the seriousness and apparent intractability of employment discrimination it is unrealistic and somewhat ingenuous to rely on there being sufficient public goodwill to fuel a voluntary program."

She documents things so carefully and so concisely that it is a wonderful document. Does the Deputy Premier not think it is time this government came clean, dropped this voluntary program, this flagship he has said he is so proud of, and started to get realistic and bring in some laws to ensure real equality in the work place in Ontario today?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I have not had an opportunity, as has the leader of the third party, to go into the report in detail. I am certainly very much impressed with the tone of the report. Anyone would want to underline the importance such a report has from the standpoint of bringing a fresh approach to this whole question. I am very much impressed with the whole matter of employment equity and the recommendations in that particular section.

I do not think I am prepared to abandon the voluntary approach at this stage for reasons I enumerated in my response to the member's question of two days ago. There are many matters in that employment equity section which we are already doing in Ontario to encourage joint worker-employer committees and the like.

Indeed, I would agree with the author of the report about the necessity of not getting involved in quotas and other matters that she is very clear about. She talks more in terms, as the member will recall, of the collection of data and information related to that. Of course, that does nothing to preclude the establishment of that type of procedure on a voluntary basis.

I repeat here in this place -- as I said to the member on Tuesday in response to his question, no doubt in anticipation of the publication of this report at that time -- that we have the record of the government of Ontario as an employer in this whole question of employment equity and we would invite others to emulate our stand.

There may be some other steps that could be taken, short of encumbering the whole matter with some type of legislation, which might become the subject matter of attention rather than the end result, namely, to move as quickly as we can to establish a work place where there is no gender discrimination and where there is equality of access to opportunity and advancement.

Mr. Rae: The minister, in speaking to the press yesterday -- I happened to be watching television and I noticed him and I read the newspaper reports of what he was saying -- went around saying how great the report was. Now he says the report is wonderful but he disagrees with its fundamental recommendation.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: Its fundamental recommendation is simply that it is time to move in terms of legislation and information. This is stuff that now has to be made mandatory. He has a secret program, a voluntary program that does not apply to whole sectors in the private sector and to many crown corporations of Ontario as well.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: When is the minister going to start to get serious about this problem, instead of the rinky-dink programs he has now that are secret, that are totally voluntary, where people can opt in and are not required to do anything, say anything or report anything? When is he going to do something serious rather than just engage in the amateurish activities with which he has been preoccupied up until now?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I am quite satisfied to let the people of Ontario be the judge of how serious we have been in this. It is important that the member recognize that for the last 10 years we have set a very good record, one worthy of emulation, as I have already mentioned. I pay tribute to Judge Abella. I have a very high regard for her and I thank her for the work she has done. She has provided a very interesting study. However, to differ on approach may not be unhealthy in a democracy.

Of course, the member has read every recommendation line by line, and I know he is quite familiar with the report. I like the tone of the report and I am committed to the objectives Her Honour has in the report. We may well differ on the route to accomplish those things, but we have our own record to stand on and to continue to work with.

The report goes on to talk employment equity, education, training, language skills, child care and working conditions. All of these are matters the member will no doubt want to comment on in his supplementary questions. In the meantime, let the rest of the province and public bodies follow the lead of the government of Ontario as an employer, and we will make great progress in this.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the difficulty in this discussion is to sort out the action from the minister's rhetoric, which is always well intentioned and eloquently done, but rarely does the action follow what he is saying. Today he is talking about contract compliance "maybe." He is always talking about things "maybe." He is threatening other people but doing nothing himself.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: Out of the number of public agencies and corporations the minister has designated, the 78 hospitals and 16 crown agencies he has targeted for voluntary affirmative action programs, why has none been set up? These are right under his own nose. How can he lecture to others when he does not take advantage of the authority he has as a member of Her Majesty's government by having those programs in the crown agencies and hospitals? Does that not make the minister look a bit like Elmer Gantry?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition makes a valid point when he says a person can hardly go around lecturing others if he does not have his own house in order, which is exactly the point I made about the position of the government of Ontario as an employer.

As the Minister responsible for Women's Issues, I am not satisfied with the record in the hospitals and school boards and I have said so. If the member wants to see an update on that, last night I spoke to nearly 200 teachers of the Niagara South Board of Education and laid out that position. The Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) and I have been to the school boards, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) and I have been to the municipalities and the Minister of Health (Mr. Norton) and I are going to the hospital boards.

We are making it quite clear that we think, as a matter of public policy, they should follow our lead. We are providing some leadership in this matter and we are committed to the concept of justice, fairness and equity in the work place. We will see some progress because it is the fair and just thing to do.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, the minister is not Elmer Gantry; he is obviously George Babbitt.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: What we are hearing straight from the horse's mouth today is pure Babbittry. What he is saying is that he believes in something but he is not prepared to do the necessary thing to see it is done. He is prepared to continue to mouth platitudes about justice and equity and so on but, when it comes to taking the necessary steps, he is not there and not ready to do the job.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: Does the minister not realize that the secretive, private, quiet, voluntary, ineffectual, rinky-dink program he has is exactly what has been totally discredited by Judge Abella's report?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I realize Judge Abella and a number of others feel no significant progress will be made in this area until it is mandated. I understand that. That is a point of view the honourable member has taken. I did not need to have Judge Abella's report to establish that point, because a distinguished parliamentarian such as this member has been telling me that week after week during question period.

There are differences of opinion on approach; we are agreed on the objective. There are other matters that can be done, short of encumbering the whole situation with all sorts of regulations and legislation to accomplish our purpose. That may be where we have an honest difference of opinion in this democratic context.

Mr. Rae: We can sum it up by saying there are lots of things that can be done, short of actually doing anything. The minister is a living demonstration of that every day.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

PLANT SHUTDOWN

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Northern Affairs concerning the shutdown at the Griffith mine. The minister says in his statement that he met with and was briefed by officials at Stelco. Is he aware of the fact that members of the union have yet to be briefed by Stelco? Can he tell us why that would have happened?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, obviously I cannot answer for Stelco. It is correct that I did meet with officials of Stelco last Wednesday; they released the news about the closing on Thursday at 2 p.m., at which time I made a statement in this Legislature.

I would like to advise the leader of the third party that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) and I took the initiative to meet with the union leaders last Wednesday at about 8 a.m. in the Minister of Labour's office. We met with Mr. David Patterson, Mr. Henry Gareau and Mr. Jankowski from the Red Lake area to discuss the whole issue. I can report to the members that there was some common ground. However, I cannot answer as to why Stelco did not meet with the union.

Mr. Rae: Just to give the minister an indication as to why these kinds of closures have such a devastating impact on people and why companies continue to act like 19th-century robber barons rather than like the good corporate citizens they pretend they want to be --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: Will the minister examine the records of the Ministry of Treasury and Economics and consult with his federal colleagues to discover whether it is true that the mine has developed new sections of the pit three times and thus has qualified for three, three-year tax exemptions for new mines? Can the minister confirm that? Will he endeavour to find that out?

Also, will he present to the House a complete audit, establishing how much public money, both in terms of tax expenditure and in terms of other forms of public contribution, has gone to that company since it was established in 1963? How much money have the taxpayers of Canada and the taxpayers of Ontario shovelled into the Griffith mine and now been told to say goodbye to by the company?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: This was one of the issues we did discuss with the union officials, and I can say to the members that there was some common ground for concern. One was the lack of information given to the municipalities at the Red Lake meeting and at the Ear Falls meeting and the lack of information with respect to the justification of closing down that mine. We have not received that information as yet.

Regarding the request of the Premier (Mr. Davis) for a further review of that decision by the company and possibly a stay of at least two years before it is closed, a reply has not been received from the company at this time.

I can further inform the members that the Premier, along with the chairman of the board, the chief executive officer and four of my cabinet colleagues, will be meeting with the officials next Tuesday to further examine the reasons for that closing.

I am not aware of any amounts of Ontario government grants being pumped into the Stelco operation at the Griffith mine.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, this past week, during the announcement and emergency debate concerning the closure of Black and Decker, we received information that the company received $1 million from the Ontario Development Corp.

After the minister is able to find out exactly the extent of public contribution to this particular company in opening up and operating the mine, will he promise the House that he will try to obtain that money back from the company and use it for job training for the people who are going to lose their jobs and for family relocation so that workers who obtain jobs in other parts of Canada are helped in their relocation? Will he give us that commitment now?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, our efforts to date have been, and will continue to be for the next short time, to keep the mine open. That is number one. We are not looking at any closure at this time; so the honourable member's question is premature.

Mr. Rae: A few hours after the minister made his announcement in this House about the Griffith mine, one of his very close friends in Ottawa, Mr. Michael Wilson, the Minister of Finance, announced that one of the major new reforms the federal government was going to carry out was to be a change in the way in which unemployment insurance treats separation payments and severance pay. I know the Minister of Labour is going to be concerned about this.

The government of Canada now is saying that severance pay and separation payments are going to be counted as earnings for purposes of unemployment insurance, which means workers will have to exhaust all their vacation pay, all their termination pay and all their severance pay before they are even going to qualify for unemployment insurance.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: It is taking $25 million out of the pockets of Ontario's workers, many of them older workers and many of whom are not going to be able to find another job, all in the name of its so-called restraint program.

I wonder whether the minister would like to go up to Ear Falls and sell that kind of program to the workers who are going to be affected by these changes.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I do not know what the question is.

Mr. Foulds: These guys are getting laid off.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, they are not being laid off yet. I am not convinced they are going to be laid off; the members opposite are, but I am not. I am not giving up that easily. The members opposite are nothing but gloom-and-doom artists.

CUNA OF ONTARIO CREDIT UNION

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations with respect to the operation of CUNA of Ontario Credit Union, about which we spoke briefly yesterday in estimates.

My concern with respect to CUNA of Ontario Credit Union and the particular lawsuit under way there is that the outcome of various negotiations is that the litigant has been unable to obtain the information he needs to contact his fellow members in that credit union to advise them of the situation.

Further, he has been prevented from taking his case to the annual meeting of the credit union, as he should be entitled to do. There is no way the more than 17,000 members of the credit union can receive the information they need to judge for themselves the situation in which the credit union finds itself.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Elston: Will the minister commit himself at this time to providing not only the names of the members of that credit union but also their addresses so they may be contacted and advised of the financial situation surrounding CUNA?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I do not want anyone in any sense to interpret me in my response to be favouring one position or the other, since there is a legal action under way, as the honourable member quite properly pointed out.

In the discussion the member and I had in estimates, I related it to the broader issue and not the particular issue of whether members of a credit union who wish to find out the names and addresses of their fellow members should have that right. Under the present statute, as I understand it, they are entitled to obtain the names but no further information.

I indicated that I have some sympathy for this point of view from the general perspective, and in the member's presence I did ask staff to review this to see whether there was any reason this could not be considered as an appropriate amendment. As soon as I have that information, I will be pleased to provide the member with it.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Elston: As the minister may well know, the initial lawsuit was at the level of $2 million. Today, I understand, the litigant has upped the ante to a sum of $35 million, which seems to be a particularly pertinent piece of information that the members should have.

Will the minister provide Mr. Lukovich with the information concerning addresses on the basis of providing a broad interpretation of his legislation? In other words, will he apply the golden rule of interpreting that legislation so Mr. Lukovich can contact those people? As the minister indicated yesterday in estimates, the names of those individual members are of no use without their addresses. Will he apply that broader interpretative rule?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The member and I had some discussions about this in estimates. He was there when members of staff who deal with the credit union area confirmed that the present legislation would not allow that type of information to be released or to be ordered to be released. From the information given to me, what the member is asking of me is an impossibility, but he knows I did indicate my views about the broader issue and said I would pursue it.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister responsible for Women's Issues, if he will return to his seat. I am sure he is expecting more questions on the Abella report today.

I notice the minister has been using ruminations about contract compliance as one of his many ways of rejecting demands for mandatory affirmative action. Are they anything more than ruminations, since he mentioned that away back last May when he had an interview with the Toronto Star? He mentioned it again in the past two or three days in further interviews, but he did admit in one of the interviews I heard that he had not even taken it up with cabinet yet.

In view of the fact that Judge Abella says contract compliance is only a partial step to effective affirmative action, since it would not cover all employers and since there might be difficulties in enforcing it with federal and provincial jurisdictions divided in this area, why is the minister considering this less-effective approach as a replacement for his present voluntary approach, which Judge Abella has said is completely useless?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, to put things in context, members of the House know the estimates of the Office of the Deputy Premier are before committee of supply. There is hardly any lack of time to discuss this. In fact, we have spent a bit of time already in our estimates review going into this whole question of affirmative action. We now have the benefit of the judge's report.

When I was asked yesterday whether there were alternatives or possible options, stopping short of legislation, I did raise the point once again that in the procurement policy of the government we could introduce a factor, namely, the filing of personnel practices, the declaration that people dealing with the government in the sale of goods and services did embrace principles of equal opportunity with respect to the work place. There are a number of ways in which signals can be given that we take this matter seriously.

The honourable member will also remember that in response to her questions in committee of supply, I raised the point that I did not feel myself to be an apologist for the private sector, yet I was quite satisfied that we did not have the whole picture of what was going on in the private sector. On the basis of my meetings with chief executive officers and presidents, there was far more going on than we had records of and our information was not up to date.

Legislation is always an option, but I think it means a lot more when people, on the basis of their particular situation -- even Judge Abella refers to the need for some flexibility in this matter. She places emphasis in her report on the collection of data, which we already provide for as part of our consulting service.

Once again, I do not see this as a rigid partisan issue. No one is disagreeing with the objective. We just do not move in with a club first; we try conciliation and negotiation. Legislation is always an option, but to use that too soon might be to work to the disadvantage of those we are trying to help.

Ms. Bryden: The minister did say earlier today he agreed with Judge Abella's suggestion that affirmative action or employment equity committees should be joint committees with both workers and management represented.

Since the minister has given us the names of only 12 of the 218 private employers who are supposed to have affirmative action programs, will he obtain for us from those 218 a record of how many of them do have joint committees, such as he apparently favours? He might be able to find out at least that much about what is going on in the private sector and bring it to us.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I think that is a reasonable supplementary. As I said on Tuesday in response to a question, we intend to update our information and we want to be that specific with respect to the type of information we will have.

CONTRACT FOR RAILS

Mr. Hennessy: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. The minister is aware that United Auto Workers Local 1075 is on strike at Can-Car Rail inc. in Thunder Bay. What action has been taken by his ministry to assist the parties in resolving this dispute?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the mediator who is appointed to this labour dispute is monitoring it on a regular basis, and his services will be available just as soon as required.

Mr. Hennessy: Can the minister assure me that this matter has been dealt with on a priority basis by senior ministry officials? What is the ministry doing to ensure there will be a speedy resolution of this dispute?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Every labour dispute that comes to the attention of our ministry and in which we get involved has a high priority. We do not have a priority list as such. In the case of Can-Car, the assistant deputy minister for industrial relations, Mr. Pathe, has been asked to make contact with the senior officials of the Can-Car union as well as senior officials at Can-Car, and that is being done.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, since the Ontario government is heavily involved in the ownership and administration of Can-Car, does the minister not think the company's approach to this strike is a rather strange way to bargain in good faith? First the firm threatens to farm out the work on the present contracts to other factories, including American ones, and then it actually cancels its bid for one of the major railcar purchases in the United States. Does he not think this is strange in the circumstances?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I have made it a practice not to discuss in this Legislature or with the media the manner in which the respective sides bargain. There is a lot of rhetoric; a lot of statements are made, sometimes in the heat of anger and sometimes for a particular purpose. It would be highly irresponsible for me to comment on statements made when things are as heated as they are.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not think a crown corporation of this province has an obligation to bargain in good faith? Does he not think it should not intimidate its workers by deliberately withdrawing from contracts it could achieve with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and with their workers at the same time?

Is the minister aware that the concessions asked for by the company include a language clause on subcontracting that would allow every part of the operation now taking place in the Can-Car plant in Thunder Bay to be farmed out? That would destroy all the jobs the government said it was trying to protect by the takeover of the Can-Car plant.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I believe that is exactly the same question that was asked by the previous questioner. My response to him is exactly the same.

There has been an encouraging comment in the media; the international representative for the union is quoted as saying pension benefits and wages are the principal differences but adding, "We are not that far apart." I find that rather encouraging.

3 p.m.

ADHERENCE TO MANUAL OF ADMINISTRATION

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet, as the minister responsible for enforcing the Public Service Act.

Now that the minister responsible for enforcing the Public Service Act is in possession of the legal opinion of learned counsel John J. Robinette, and furthermore, now that the minister responsible for enforcing the Public Service Act is in possession of the request for a leave of absence, which has been granted to Mr. Lou Parsons, a schedule 2 crown employee and chairman of the GO Transit authority, can he indicate whether he is aware that two other schedule 2 crown employees, namely Mr. John White, chairman of the Ontario Heritage Foundation, and Dr. Harry Parrott, chairman of the Ontario Science Centre, have just this week signed on the team of the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman)?

Is the minister responsible for the enforcement of the Public Service Act aware that two more schedule 2 crown employees have signed on to the leadership campaign team of the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious from the menu -- yes, it is a bit of a menu -- that the member for Renfrew North is going to carry on with this balderdash for quite some time.

In my absence last week he raised the issue of Tessie Jew attending some, as he said, Progressive Conservative do. He found out a little later that previous to that she had been at some do with the Honourable David Collenette as president of the Ontario Council of Philippino Canadian Associations, so he decided he would drop all that.

I do not have a thing to tell me that the previously Honourable Harry Parrott or any others have a say in --

Mr. McClellan: How about "semi-Honourable"?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. McCague: As I would, he would probably be happy to retain the title of "Honour-able" all his life, but as all members know, one loses that title when one resigns or is no longer a member.

Mr. Breaugh: Some lose it before.

Hon. Mr. McCague: I will send the member some bird seed to stop his chirping.

I have no indication anybody has signed on with anybody else. If the member has proof of that, let him show me the signature and I will be glad to take it under consideration.

Mr. Conway: To the minister responsible for enforcing the Public Service Act might I say the proof is right here: "White and Parrott Join the Grossman Team."

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Conway: Because Lou Parsons finally did the honourable thing in taking a leave of absence from his public responsibility to continue on the team of the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller), would the minister responsible for the Public Service Act not agree that Harry Parrott and John White should in a similar way do the honourable thing Lou Parsons finally did -- ask for and be granted an immediate leave of absence so they might continue to play on the team of the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick, winners or losers?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Conway: If it would help, I would provide the enforcer of the Public Service Act with a copy of the literature of the team of the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick.

Mr. Speaker: No, the member for Renfrew North will please resume his seat.

Hon. Mr. McCague: I have no idea where that press release came from. It may have come from the Ontario Heritage Foundation, the Ontario Science Centre, the Liberal Party or the New Democratic Party. I will be glad to take a look at it.

I have no indication that these two gentlemen are actively campaigning for the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick. The member may well have something there saying that somebody else said they were. He does not want an answer: he wants to create embarrassment, the kind of embarrassment we did not raise when the other parties were having their leadership campaigns.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, let the record show that no government has done more to politicize and bowdlerize the public service of this province than the Tory party of Ontario and the government of Ontario under the Tory party. It is an absolute disgrace what is allowed to happen.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: I would like to ask the Chairman of Management Board whether he is going to start applying rules fairly across the board to each and every member of the public service or whether he is going to continue this charade where, if some senior people do it he is prepared to turn a blind eye and pretend he does not know anything about it, but if other people do it he comes down on them like a ton of bricks. When is he going to end this charade and show some fairness to public servants in this province?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, if I were the leader of the third party I would be a bit annoyed too at not having had any part in government for 41 years. I admit I would be disturbed too if I were he, but the rules are applied evenly.

ONTARIO LEGAL AID PLAN

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Health concerning section 66 of the Mental Health Act which the minister proclaimed earlier this year and which provides for notice to the area director when a patient has become an involuntary patient. Many groups have written to him, and I have written to him as well, about the fact that this section of the act is not working and that the legal aid people are not paying attention to the notices they receive.

Is he aware of a memo that was sent by a Lawrence Easto, who is the area director of legal aid in Owen Sound? He says:

"The area director of Simcoe county, which includes three psychiatric facilities, adopted what I consider to be the most appropriate procedure following and dealing with these notifications. The policy in Simcoe county with regard to notifications under the Mental Health Act is to immediately file the forms in the garbage without time-stamping, indexing, duplicating, filing, reading or further reporting or further handling."

Is the minister aware that this is how section 66 of the Mental Health Act is being dealt with? What is he going to do to change the situation, so the intent of the act is followed?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that particular memo but I am aware that certain officials in the Ontario legal aid plan have been acting in a manner I think is totally inappropriate in response to the notice that is required under that legislation.

Yesterday, on my behalf, my deputy minister attended a meeting with the treasurer of the Law Society of Upper Canada and a senior official from the Ontario legal aid plan, in the presence, I believe, of the Ombudsman. He made it perfectly clear that procedure was unacceptable in our view and was neither in the spirit nor in the letter of the requirements. He also said filing is not appropriate and some action is necessary on behalf of the persons who are being committed against their will or are otherwise entitled to the notice.

I understand that coming out of that meeting was an indication from the law society officials that they were now willing to work with us to work out an appropriate procedure to act on behalf of these individuals.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the minister that I was very pleased when he proclaimed sections 66 and 67 of the Mental Health Act, realizing that, if he had not done so, he would have been liable to challenges under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I am also generally pleased with the answer he gave this morning.

But since this was a memo that was sent out by Mr. Lawrence Easto, the area director of the Ontario legal aid plan in the Owen Sound area, will the minister instruct the learned gentleman and other officials of the Ontario legal aid plan to send out a memorandum as quickly as is feasible, instructing the legal profession and the legal aid plan administrators with respect to their obligations under the Mental Health Act? Will he share that memorandum with us as soon as it is produced?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I obviously do not have the authority to instruct them to issue a particular memorandum. I would hope that as a result of the meeting that occurred yesterday they would take such responsible action themselves. If they should fail to do so and to change their present pattern of behaviour, I will pursue it further with my colleague the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry). If there is not some very immediate resolution, there will be a major confrontation, I can assure the member, between me and them.

MUNICIPAL ROADS

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transportation and Communications and it relates to the issue of roads. The minister is no doubt aware of the data from his ministry on the road system adequacies for the counties and municipalities in Ontario.

Is he aware that, according to his ministry, 66.5 per cent of the roads in Prescott-Russell are deemed adequate? Yet when I contacted Mr. Jack Lynch, the road superintendent for the counties of Prescott and Russell, he informed us that the percentage of roads they deem deficient is close to 70 per cent. This is a complete reversal of what the ministry's figures show.

Can the minister explain the discrepancy between these statistics?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, my ministry maintains an assessment record of the percentage of adequacy of the road systems of all upper-tier municipalities and all the large lower-tier municipalities in the province. These statistics are based on the roads needs studies that are carried out by the municipalities and submitted to the ministry. Each municipality is supposed to assess its roads on the same criteria, which are set up by the ministry in conjunction with the Municipal Engineers Association.

There may be some differences of opinion or there may be some counties, regions or municipalities that upgrade their roads needs studies every year; others tend to update their studies every five years. What my ministry says is the adequacy level of the roads in a municipality and what the local roads superintendent says may very well be two different things, but our assessment would be based on the roads needs studies carried out by the consultants hired by that municipality.

Mr. Eakins: Perhaps the minister is also aware that in Hamilton-Wentworth the percentage of deficient roads is 59 per cent and, of this percentage, 22.2 per cent are deemed critically deficient. I am sure the member for Wentworth (Mr. Dean) finds these figures as appalling as we do.

Will the minister tell the House how regions and counties such as Hamilton-Wentworth, Prescott and Russell, Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, Muskoka and others can attract development and tourism when their road systems are falling into disrepair, their funding from this government in real dollars continues to decline and yet the ministry refuses to acknowledge the problem even exists?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I do not think I have ever refused to acknowledge that the problem exists. I know the problem exists just as well as the honourable member does and perhaps a heck of a lot -- I will keep my language down -- better.

It concerns me that when the member was rhyming off those regions and counties that have inadequate roads, he forgot to mention that the municipality with the lowest level of road adequacy happens to be the region of Halton.

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Barlow from the standing committee on resources development reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1985:

Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, ministry administration program, $4,618,200; tourism development program, $23,503,400; parks and attractions program, $42,512,300; recreation, sports and fitness program, $14,308,900; and ministry field operations, $38,152,000.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr. Kolyn from the standing committee on administration of justice reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1985:

Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, ministry administration program, $8,236,700; commercial standards program, $25,095,200; technical standards program, $8,217,400; public entertainment standards program, $23,868,800, property rights program, $28,459,000; registrar general program, $4,563,900, liquor licence program, $6,992,400; and residential tenancy program, $7,440,500.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

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

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr33, An Act respecting the Association of Registered Interior Designers of Ontario.

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

Bill Pr39, An Act respecting the Town of Iroquois Falls.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

NURSING HOMES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Cooke moved, seconded by Mr. Laughren, first reading of Bill 151, An Act to amend the Nursing Homes Act.

Motion agreed to.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to force owners of nursing homes to file a statement of profit and loss in each fiscal year, which would include the details of expenditures on nursing care, food, recreation and other programs, and a budget with all projected expenditures for the next fiscal year, including details of projected expenditures for nursing care, food, recreation and other programs.

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

Mr. Laughren moved, seconded by Mr. Wildman, that pursuant to standing order 34(a), the ordinary business of the House be set aside in order to debate a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the decision by Stelco Inc. to close its iron ore mining operations in the town of Ear Falls in northwestern Ontario; the fact that the decision was made unilaterally by the company without any public consideration of alternatives; the fact that the loss of 283 jobs at the Griffith mine will literally destroy the economic base of the town; the fact that the Ear Falls closure is the sixth iron ore mine closure since 1977; and the lack of any plans or policies in the government to deal with the issue of the economic vulnerability of one-industry towns despite the fact that a cabinet committee has supposedly been dealing with this issue since 1977.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to advise all honourable members that the notice of motion was received in the office of the Speaker within the time limits set forth in the standing orders.

However, I would like to take this opportunity to point out to the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) and others of the assembly that the form of the motion itself, in my opinion, would have been more properly made by deleting the semicolon after "Ontario' and inserting a period.

Nevertheless, in spite of that, I am prepared to listen for up to five minutes to why the honourable member feels the ordinary business of the House should be set aside.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, that is not the objection I was expecting from you.

I feel very strongly that the ordinary business of this assembly should be set aside this afternoon in view of the impact of the closing of the Griffith mine on the communities in that area, particularly Ear Falls, if it is allowed to happen. I was very pleased to hear the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) say he did not accept that. We will see.

The blow to the Ear Falls community would be devastating if it occurred. Forty per cent of the work force is employed by this mine in Ear Falls and 70 per cent of its tax base comes from that mine. If the 283 workers are laid off, the results will truly be catastrophic in that community.

I was pleased as well to hear the Premier (Mr. Davis) has sent a letter to the company suggesting that there be a two-year notice before any closure occurs. It did sound a bit as though he was expecting the closure. Nevertheless, I was glad to hear it.

What bothers me a great deal, and the reason I think there must be an emergency debate this afternoon, is that this is not an isolated issue. It is not as though this was the only occurrence or an unusual occurrence in northern Ontario. Indeed, that area of the province is dotted with towns that have been devastated because of the closure of mines. I believe this is the sixth closure of an iron ore mine in the last seven years.

The iron ore industry itself is in trouble, as well as being the economic base of many one-industry communities in northern Ontario, so we really must have a debate about this ongoing problem. This is not a single issue; this is a serious problem that faces many one-industry communities all across northern Ontario. In other words, I am saying this is a microcosm of the bigger problem in northern Ontario.

Despite the rumoured efforts of the Minister of Northern Affairs not to have this debate, I assume we will be allowed to continue with it and that the government members will not object to having this debate this afternoon. I remind them that we had a good debate on Tuesday afternoon about the closure of the Black and Decker company in Barrie. While that was a serious problem -- we moved the emergency debate, so we obviously think it is serious -- if one were to compare the devastating effects on the two communities, there is no comparison. So it is terribly important that we proceed with this debate.

There is a need for us to talk about the province implementing an independent geological assessment of just what ores we have in the province. At the present time, despite the fact this ore belongs to the crown, we have no idea what is out there -- none whatsoever.

The Minister of Northern Affairs and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) do not know what is the life of any given ore body. They do not know this, unless they happen to ask a mining executive and that mining executive gives them his or her opinion of what the life of that ore body might be.

We need a decent policy. I believe this is the place to debate the need for such a policy and, more specifically, the place to debate the future of Ear Falls if this closure is allowed to stand. It is time we brought to an end the freedom of seven Ontario and American executives to shut down towns in northern Ontario.

Mr. Reed: Mr. Speaker, any time there is an impending closure of a single company which is the major industry in a northern Ontario community, it has to be considered an emergency by this Legislature.

We have been trying to come to terms with the fundamental issue of one-industry communities in northern Ontario for many years. My party has put forward a multitude of proposals -- very specific ones in some cases -- on how that problem could be attacked. Basically, our position has been that the resource base that exists in northern Ontario can be approached in a more diversified manner to provide alternative employment and alternative industry in these communities.

The government itself established a cabinet committee in 1977. It would be interesting to know whatever happened to that cabinet committee. It seems to me it quietly folded its tent and tiptoed away around 1980, and nothing has really appeared since that time. Northern Ontario cannot fulfil its economic destiny if it is going to be subjected to a continued boom-and-bust situation in its smaller communities.

In spite of the fact that a debate this afternoon will cut into private members' hour -- and we are naturally concerned about that -- we feel that in the order of priorities here this is a priority issue. We feel this issue really needs to have a thorough airing in this Legislature.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could respond to the resolution put forward by the member for Nickel Belt. I would first express my appreciation for the member's concern for the workers at the Griffith mine, for their families, for the communities that will be affected and that entire area. I appreciate that concern and I am not downplaying the seriousness of it one iota.

Last Wednesday the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) and I were visited by Stelco officials to be informed of their decision to close on April 1, 1985. We met shortly after with the Premier to inform him of that decision. He decided a letter would be sent to them and that I would make a statement in the Legislature. I did that last Thursday, outlining the government's position. Stelco made its announcement at the same time and met with municipal officials in the Red Lake-Ear Falls area.

3:30 p.m.

At that time, I informed the members of the Legislature that the Premier had already directed a letter to Mr. John Allan, president and chief executive officer of Stelco. He asked the company if it was possible to reverse its decision, in the hope that the iron ore source from Ontario could be maintained and that it not be replaced with ore from offshore or other areas of Canada. Failing that, if the economics were not there, then a further delay in the actual closing would be implemented for at least two years. A reply to that letter has not been received yet.

Further to that, as I mentioned in question period, the Minister of Labour and I met with the steelworkers union last Wednesday, at a meeting that lasted well over an hour, with Mr. Dave Patterson from the United Steelworkers of America. Mr. Henry Gareau from the Atikokan area and Mr. Jankowski, who lives in the Starratt-Olsen area and is the union steward at the mine itself. We discussed the whole issue and the way it was handled. I can say to the House there was some common ground and common concern that we are working on.

The Stelco officials have been invited to a meeting next week with the Premier, three of my cabinet colleagues -- the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller). the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Natural Resources -- and me. We have not received a firm response from Stelco at this time, but we hope that meeting will go forward.

As I said, the response to the Premier's letter has not been received as yet. To move at this time with an emergency debate on this issue would be a little premature. There is no question about that. I suggest it be put over to another date and not be proceeded with at this time.

In closing, I want to express my appreciation for the members' concern. It may well be that a debate of this kind should be held on another date, after these high-level meetings are concluded and we get the factual information from Stelco.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened very carefully and attentively to the positions put forward. My only responsibility is to determine whether the motion is in order. I have read sections 34(a), 34(b) and 34(c) very carefully and I find the motion is in order. The only question before the House is, shall the debate proceed?

5:58 p.m.

The House divided on whether the debate should proceed, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Bradley, Breaugh, Bryden, Conway, Cooke, Di Santo, Eakins, Epp, Foulds, Grande, Haggerty, Laughren, Lupusella, Mackenzie, Mancini, Martel, McClellan, McKessock, Miller, G. I., Newman, Nixon, O'Neil, Philip, Rae, Reed, Ruprecht, Ruston, Samis, Stokes, Wildman, Worton.

Nays

Andrewes, Barlow, Bernier, Brandt, Cousens, Dean, Drea, Eaton, Elgie, Eves, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Harris, Havrot, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Kennedy, Kerr, Kolyn, Lane, MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McCague, McLean, McNeil, Mitchell, Norton;

Piché, Pollock, Ramsay, Robinson, Rotenberg, Runciman, Scrivener, Sheppard, Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Treleaven, Watson, Welch, Wells, Yakabuski.

Ayes 32; nays 43.

Mr. Piché: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Will there be some explanation as to why we had to wait two hours for the vote?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Piché: I assume that --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member will resume his seat. Thank you.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, tonight we will deal with Bill 77 in committee of the whole House. The votes are to be stacked to 10:15 p.m.

Tomorrow, November 23, we will begin with third readings of bills in Orders and Notices -- except for Bill 89 -- and Bill 77, if passed tonight, and then do all the private bills in Orders and Notices and then the estimates of the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch).

On Monday, November 26, we will complete the estimates of the Deputy Premier, followed by second readings of Bills 102, 135 and 132.

On Tuesday, November 27, in the afternoon we will have second reading of Bill 17, the Election Act. If time permits, we will deal with Bill 82. In the evening we will continue with Bill 82, if it is not completed, followed by Bills 147, 109 and 138, with any votes scheduled for 10:15 p.m.

On Wednesday, November 28, the usual three committees have permission to sit in the morning. On Thursday, November 29, in the afternoon, we will deal with private members' ballot items in the names of the member for Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella) and the member for Carleton East (Mr. MacQuarrie). In the evening we will deal with any legislation still remaining from Tuesday night and other business that may be announced that day.

On Friday, November 30, we will deal with Bill 101 in committee of the whole House, with any votes to be stacked until Monday, December 3.

The House recessed at 6:05 p.m.

November 22, 1984