Journal des débats 1981-déc-18 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Smith: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: As you know, apart from this being my last day in the Legislature as leader, it may turn out to be my last day in the Legislature in any sense depending on circumstances that may or may not develop in the near future. I am sad to leave, but I do want to say I am perhaps a little less sad in the light of some facts which have come to my attention. I think they impinge on the privileges of every member of the House and are of considerable importance to all members.

There is a genuine health concern and a genuine concern about the building itself which I think you should know about, sir. There are three electrical transformers in this building filled with polychlorinated biphenyls. There is a large transformer in the sub-basement under the corridor between the main building and the north wing which has in it 2,638 litres of PCBs. There are two smaller transformers filled with 428 litres each of PCBs and these are located at the far east and west ends of the basement of the building.

My research staff has been shown two of the three transformers, the large one and the one at the east end of the basement. Both of these are visibly leaking PCBs. My concerns about a potential health effect are well-founded, for if there were to be a fire in the building affecting the transformers, or even a relatively small fire just in the transformers themselves, this building might actually have to be closed forever.

I draw to your attention, sir, a building in Binghamton, New York. This is a skyscraper that was the centrepiece of downtown development. There was a fire in the transformer almost a year ago, on February 5, 1981. That building is empty; it is padlocked; it is contaminated. Although some of the furniture and so on has been moved to landfill sites, after certain procedures have been carried out, people have to don special equipment to go into that building. The fact is that building is empty and may remain so. In fact the cleanup may cost in the tens of millions of dollars.

The concern I have is that this sort of thing could happen here. It could happen in many buildings all over the province. In Toronto, for example, it could happen in the Whitney Block or the south Frost Building, many of the major hospitals such as Toronto General, Toronto Western, Mount Sinai, and a number of secondary schools. They also have transformers. I do not know if those transformers are leaking the way two are in this building, but I do know there are transformers that contain PCBs in this building as well.

The Binghamton lesson to us is a very real one, and I simply want to draw your attention to the fact that this is a serious concern. I urge that action has to be taken to remove the PCBs from the transformers in this building and other important buildings, particularly in view of the fact that leakage is occurring.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): I thank the honourable member and I will refer this whole matter to the Speaker upon his return later today. I know it will be dealt with quickly.

COLUMN IN TORONTO SUN

Mr. Cassidy: On a matter of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I was absent from the House yesterday and, therefore, I did not have a chance to comment on this matter at that time. The matter I wish to raise is related to the article that was published in the Toronto Sun yesterday by its political columnist Claire Hoy. On Sunday of this week I was out at the Polish consulate, and subsequently the Polish credit union. On Wednesday of this week, I was on the steps of the City Hall in Toronto at a rally that was jointly sponsored by the Canadian Labour Congress and by the Canadian Polish Congress in support of the workers of Poland and Solidarity.

It is something this House felt very strongly about and had a debate about on Monday. I would say the tone and content of Mr. Hoy's article is not only an attack on me, it is also an article that is full of distortion, innuendo and untruths and I believe it affects the privileges of all members of this House. I would ask if I could just say a word or two about this. It is my last day as leader, and over the course of the last four years I have kept my cool, as is my duty. I bit my lip at times at criticism.

It is something that goes with the job of being the leader of any party, as the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Smith) happen to know. But when I, and my own integrity -- which I believe I have maintained over the course of this four years -- are impugned, and when the New Democratic Party and the Federation of Labour and even the Roman Catholic church are slandered, I believe that sometime, somewhere, somehow, a person should get up and speak. I believe the history of societies, not just of Canada's society, shows that when no people get up and speak against this kind of thing in the end everyone's liberties and everyone's freedoms are diminished.

This was the most vicious attack that has been made on the New Democratic Party or on any party in this Legislature in the four years since I became leader of the New Democratic Party. I am wearing a button that says "Solidarnosc" and underneath that "Canadian Labour Congress/Congrès du travail du Canada". It is the button that was prepared by the Canadian Labour Congress in conjunction with its support for the Canadian Polish Congress rally on Wednesday.

10:10 a.m.

Mr. Hoy's article quotes his colleague, Barbara Amiel, who in turn was quoting one of, I believe, three delegates who opposed their resolution in support of Solidarnosc in the debate at the Ontario Federation of Labour. Those three delegates were all people who have identified themselves with the Communist Party. Val Bjarnason, one of the speakers, who is secretary general of the United Electrical Workers, has also been a candidate for the Communist Party.

I believe the person who is being quoted in the article and was trying to defend the indefensible in terms of the actions of the authorities in Poland was a Mr. Lee, who was also connected with Mr. Bjarnason's union and also connected, therefore, with the union which has leaned very heavily towards the Communist Party.

The fact is we have a democratic trade union movement that does not speak with just one voice and --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Why do you criticize me for saying that? Do you remember that day?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order. The honourable member has the floor.

Mr. Cassidy: -- that permits dissent. Over in the Soviet Union or in Poland or places like that they outlaw parties which are democratic parties, which are not Communist Parties. If anybody in this Legislature or in the press of this province were to suggest that Ontario or Canada should outlaw the Communist Party, we would simply be putting ourselves into that kind of camp, and that I simply could not accept.

The vote at the Federation of Labour in support of Solidarnosc was overwhelmingly in favour. At that rally at city hall square, the Federation of Labour was represented not only by Dennis McDermott who spoke and was quoted but also by Cliff Pilkey, the president who was on the platform, by Terry Meagher who was the secretary treasurer, by Wally Majesky, of Polish descent himself, who was the president of the Labour Council of Metro Toronto and by other labour leaders.

The federal New Democratic Party leader Ed Broadbent, was there to speak at the rally at city hall square. To suggest anything other than our condemnation of the Polish Communist Party and the repression of the trade unionists is simply untrue.

In another part of the article Mr. Hoy said and I quote: "During his speech," my speech, "he actually had the gall to argue it's not really the Polish Communist Party at fault for this oppression." That is not only a distortion, it is untrue. I will read what I stated during the course of that debate.

I read, which Mr. Hoy failed to report, the resolution that had been passed by the provincial council of the Ontario New Democratic Party at our meeting on Sunday, when we said and I quote: "The provincial council of the Ontario New Democratic Party condemns, in the most severe terms possible, the harsh suppression by the Polish Communist Party against the Polish people and their free trade union federation, Solidarity. We in the Ontario New Democratic Party wish to convey our strong support to the efforts of the working people of Poland in their struggle for political and economic democracy."

I said as well, in that debate, and I quote, "Freedom is a mighty word, a mighty and powerful concept, and that is what has happened in Poland over the course of the last 16 months. Not all the Soviet tanks and missiles, not all the powers of a dictatorial Communist system, nor all the abuses of socialism that have taken place in that country and the eastern bloc were enough to repress that thin, small voice which has been getting louder, clearer and more powerful day after day and month after month in Poland." That too was not reported in the distorted account of Mr. Hoy.

Mr. Hoy says, and I quote, that leftist, totalitarian systems are the inescapable result of Cassidy's philosophy. Not true. Witness West Germany which has a social democratic government. Not true. Witness England, which has had a labour party in power off and on for the last 30 or 40 years. Not true. Look at the fight of the socialists who restored democracy in Greece. Not true. Look at Saskatchewan. Not true. Look at Manitoba and the recent election. Not true. Look at the way the social democrats have been in power for many years in Sweden and they are democratic. Not true.

Mr. Hoy says we have the same mentality as the Soviets. He should know, as I think all members of this House know, that the New Democratic Party has been first and foremost in the defence of human rights in our country, as social democrats have around the world for many years. In fact, it was our party which alone stood to oppose the War Measures Act and the withdrawal of human rights in this country some years ago.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member has made his point. I think the House understands what has been said. And the point of order has been very clear.

Mr. Cassidy: I want to conclude briefly, Mr. Speaker. I am a journalist by profession. I was a journalist for a number of years before I came into this House. As a journalist I cannot defend that kind of innuendo, that kind of distortion, and that kind of untruth. I find it very difficult to defend, when a journalist in this country uses the same tactics that have been used by the Polish authorities in their attacks on Solidarity over the course of the last 16 months.

That kind of thing brings this House into disrepute. I have no means, nor would I wish, to censure Mr. Hoy. It is a free society. However, I believe that his fellow journalists have a responsibility to speak up, as I am now speaking up. The press gallery members, or the journalists' association, or some other group, should look into whether it would not be proper to censure Mr. Hoy for bringing their profession into disrepute, and I wanted to put those comments on the record.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

REPORT OF FARM ACTION COMMITTEE

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, first, a brown envelope for the leader of the New Democrats, and, second, this morning, the leader of the Liberal Party.

Hon. Mr. Davis: There is an old saying, the first shall be last and the last shall be first.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Things do turn around.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is a biblical saying.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, today it is my pleasure to table the report of the farm action committee. As members are aware, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture submitted a report last month on farm credit and financing. Following the presentation of this report to the provincial government, our Premier established an action committee to review the OFA's proposals. The report I am tabling contains some excellent recommendations. We are studying these proposals and I expect to be able to announce the government's plan of action before Christmas.

I should like to point out to members that this government has already made major commitments in the agricultural sector during this difficult period. In all we have committed nearly $60 million to the hardest hit group -- namely, the beef sector. We would certainly like to see some positive action on the part of the federal government. By comparison with what we have done, it has done very little, and the recent budget only made matters worse.

I would like to refer this House to the remarks made by the provincial Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), my colleague, in his opening remarks to the finance ministers' conference last Monday. He pointed out that the small business development bond program --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Just listen. The truth hurts, and the members on the opposite side do not like the truth.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): The minister has the floor. Order.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I repeat, he pointed out that the small business development bond program has been seriously weakened, to the point that it can do little to assist the small businesses and farmers of this country. In addition, the underfinancing of the Farm Credit Corporation is little short of a national scandal.

I would add to his remarks by noting that if we had an adequate farm stabilization program for national commodities, many of our producers would not be in such desperate trouble. I should like to take a moment here to deal with a few items in the action committee's report.

The committee has recommended financial assistance for farmers who have been hard hit by high interest rates and high rates of inflation. They have made it clear they believe assistance should be given to those with a reasonably good management record and outlook for the future.

10:20 a.m.

They recommend that applicants be screened by local committees composed of the bank manager and farm accountant and an official of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. These recommendations would be sent to a provincial body for final approval.

The action committee recommends three ways of providing assistance. One is a six-month bridging program. Under this, banks would defer interest for six months and would not compound the interest. This would be useful to a farmer with a cash-flow problem. For example, a farmer might be short of cash right now but would be fine once his livestock or crop is sold.

It would work this way. Suppose a farmer had a loan for $100,000 outstanding at a 20 per cent floating interest rate. His interest for six months would come to $10,000. The bank would agree to defer this interest payment for six months without any compounding. The government would guarantee the $10,000 since the bank would agree not to charge interest on the deferred amount. It would be losing $1,000. At the end of six months, the farmer would repay the $10,000 and the bank would absorb the $1,000 loss in compound interest.

Under the second mechanism, the government would make a grant that would reduce the interest on floating rate bank loans by five percentage points for a period of one year. Interest rates would not be reduced below 12 per cent, however. This mechanism would produce a positive cash flow for the one-year period.

If a producer had a floating rate bank loan of, say, $200,000 with interest at 20 per cent --

Mr. Smith: That's not what the book said.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: The member does not really care or he would listen. It is easy to see why it is his last day as leader.

The Acting Speaker: Order, the minister has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: -- the local committee might decide that he needed the reduction. If so, this subsidy would reduce his interest payments from $40,000 per year to $30,000 per year. This would immediately increase his cash flow by $10,000 for the year.

If the prime rates and the effective rates to farmers fell to say 15 per cent, the subsidy would be three per cent. The increase in cash flow in this example would be $6,000.

The third option is a provincial guarantee of a line of operating credit. This would be used by a producer who needed new credit to put in his crop, or buy livestock, or to cover some other operating expense.

The example I could give here would be a producer with 200 sows in a farrow-to-finish operation. If he needed, say, $300,000 in a new line of operating credit the bank would issue the line of credit at the prime rate and the government would guarantee the whole $300,000. The bank would make no profit on this new line of credit as it would be offered at the prime rate. This kind of program would be offered to keep a good working farm in production.

Mr. Smith: Are you going to do it?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: As I said, we are giving this report very careful consideration --

Mr. Nixon: Oh, that is what we are getting. That is a nice Christmas present.

Mr. Smith: Careful consideration. Are you going to give it consideration?

The Acting Speaker: Order. Carry on.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, again, it is easy to understand why the Leader of the Opposition is here for the last day as leader. I hope to make an announcement before Christmas.

Mr. Bradley: Now?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Yes, before Christmas.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe our privileges have been breached in this House. From time to time both the Treasurer and the Minister of Agriculture and Food have indicated to this House that prior to the close of this session an announcement would be made committing assistance to the farmers. All we have now is a report from the action committee of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, which we can read ourselves, with absolutely no commitment to those farmers who were hoping to have a good Christmas by learning of some kind of assistance in order to keep their farms operating. They have not received it.

We will not have an opportunity to debate in this House any kind of program for the farmers because the minister has just indicated he might bring something in before Christmas. We are not going to have a chance to have any input into that whatsoever. Our privileges have certainly been breached because we are the party that has been insisting that emergency help be given to those farmers and as yet they have not received it. And further --

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): The honourable member has made his point. There are still more statements, there is question period, and there will be other opportunities to rebut this.

Mr. Riddell: I have one more point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Another point of privilege?

Mr. Riddell: Yes. I believe the minister inadvertently misled this House when he said, and I quote from the Toronto Sun, "If we had that amount of money to spend from the government of Canada we could certainly equal any payments to our farmers that the farmers of Quebec got."

In other words, yesterday he stood in the House and said Quebec received a $1.8 billion equalization payment --

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member's point of privilege has been made. He is making a suggestion. There are more statements and I see no point of privilege at this time.

Mr. Riddell: You are not going to let me finish that point of privilege?

The Acting Speaker: No.

Mr. Riddell: He inadvertently misled the House. What he failed to say was that --

The Acting Speaker: I have the floor. The honourable member will take his seat.

Mr. Riddell: What he failed to say was that Ontario was eligible for $1.4 billion --

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member does not have a point of privilege --

Mr. Riddell: -- for 1981 and 1982, and we didn't take it because we are too proud to admit we need it --

The Acting Speaker: -- and he will resume his seat.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I want to add my assurance to the agriculture minister's that this government is committed to a support program for our farmers before Christmas.

Given the difficult times our farmers are facing, the government will make available an extra $60 million in additional funding for this purpose.

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, a point of clarification:

The Acting Speaker: There is no such thing as a point of clarification.

Mr. McKessock: Okay, a point of privilege. Was that $60 million or $600 million?

Hon. F. S. Miller: This program will bring genuine help as efficiently as possible to those who need it. For that reason we want to be sure the mechanisms suggested by the committee will work and that the decision process will function smoothly and efficiently. The banks have been consulted several times in the last few weeks. They are being very co-operative and are willing to give full backing to this assistance program brought forth by this government.

We have the main outline of a program now and are proceeding very quickly to deal with the operational details. We will be in constant contact with the banks during the next few days to settle the final details of our program. I would like to remind members that this brings to $120 million this government's commitment to producers since July 1 to assist them during these most difficult times.

I repeat, the government will make available $60 million in additional funding for this purpose.

10:30 a.m.

ADVANCED MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY FACILITIES

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, today the government is ready to make announcements regarding the establishment, location and mandate of new facilities for advanced manufacturing technology. Members of the Legislature will recall in the economic development strategy of the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development that we proposed to establish a facility for computer-aided design, computer-aided manufacturing and robotics technologies.

Since that time we have held extensive consultations with the private sector, members of our own task force on microelectronics, leading experts from the academic community and a number of municipalities. These consultations indicated that to be successful our programs should take advantage of existing expertise. The best way to accomplish this objective is to locate the functions of our high-technology centres near that expertise. As a result, BILD has decided to create two distinct divisions of the advanced manufacturing technology facility.

The first will specialize in robotics and will be located in the great city of Peterborough. In the final analysis, Peterborough was selected as the best site for this facility because both the municipality and local industry in the area demonstrated extensive pragmatic assistance for the establishment and continuing program support for this new robotics facility. I am pleased to report that Canadian General Electric, which has established expertise in robotics at its Peterborough plant, is prepared to undertake a short-term startup contract. I believe the expertise of this firm will ensure the centre begins activity immediately and will assist us in securing appropriate staff.

The second facility for advanced manufacturing technologies will specialize in general promotion, application and development of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing technologies, referred to as CAD/CAM. Following extensive consultation with industry, universities and several municipalities, the government has selected the great city of Cambridge as the site for this centre. These two great municipalities are well represented in this assembly, I might add.

Cambridge was selected because it is centrally located to client industries and has easy access to the available expertise at the Universities of Waterloo, McMaster and Toronto, as well as community colleges such as Conestoga, Mohawk and Durham. In addition, both the municipality and local industry in the Cambridge area demonstrated their willingness to provide assistance and support for the establishment of this new centre.

I am also pleased to report that several industrial organizations have already offered startup assistance on a contract basis to enable us to acquire the best available staff and technical expertise. We hope to complete those negotiations shortly so that the centre will be able to begin its activities early in the new year.

The mandate of these advanced manufacturing technology centres will be: To assist Ontario industry to adopt new technologies such as computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (prime responsibility, Cambridge); to assist Ontario industry to adopt robotics (prime responsibility, Peterborough); to provide demonstrations of advanced manufacturing systems to industry through orientation seminars for management and technical workshops for engineers and technicians (prime responsibility, Cambridge; robotics responsibility, Peterborough); to conduct surveys of industrial plants to help identify potential applications and the provision of technical assistance on request (prime responsibility, Cambridge; robotics responsibility, Peterborough); to undertake fee-for-service development projects in areas where no commercial capabilities exist (CAD/CAM responsibility, Cambridge; robotics responsibility, Peterborough); to encourage Canadian manufacturers to produce the required hardware and software, wherever feasible (CAD/CAM responsibility, Cambridge; robotics responsibility, Peterborough); and to stimulate the introduction of new operational and product technologies (prime responsibility, Cambridge).

In addition, to promote both the use of advanced technologies, as well as the products and services of Canadian high-technology companies, the Cambridge and Peterborough centres will both operate outreach programs.

As part of these programs, a mobile demonstration unit equipped with the latest technology will conduct onsite demonstrations. Indeed, our objective is to promote and encourage the adoption of leading edge innovative manufacturing technologies for small and medium-size firms throughout the province. We believe both of these centres and their outreach programs will be critically important to the future viability of Ontario manufacturers.

These new technologies can improve significantly our ability to compete internationally and domestically by enhancing product quality, reliability and the cost effectiveness of our manufacturers. Indeed, if we fail to take advantage of the improvements in efficiency that these new technologies now permit, our manufacturers could become noncompetitive in world markets.

Extensive studies that my ministry has undertaken in conjunction with the Ontario Research Foundation indicate that Canada lags in the introduction of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing and robotics. We are determined to close this technology gap in Ontario.

The majority of the existing high-technology machinery and equipment is currently being imported. This is of concern because both the domestic and international demand for these products is expected to grow rapidly over the next decade. Therefore, one of the major activities of these new centres will be to stimulate the production of these sophisticated products here in Canada.

These centres have been designed to assist and complement the private sector. As is the case for the microelectronics technology centre, any patents that may be obtained by these centres will be offered to Ontario manufacturers for commercial development.

Moreover, we expect that the promotional and training activities of each of these centres will create a substantial market for the services of research organizations, private firms and consulting engineers.

The two centres for advanced manufacturing technology will report to the Ministry of Industry and Tourism. They will have combined funding estimated at $40 million over the next five years. These centres will have a combined initial allocation of $500,000 for the startup phase to March 31, 1982. We anticipate that by the fifth year, half of the operating costs of both centres will be recovered from fees for services provided to the private sector.

Following legislation on these centres which we intend to introduce early in the next session, we expect to recruit an executive director for each centre in the new year. The executive directors and senior core staff will be recruited from the most qualified professionals available anywhere.

The centres' staff -- most of whom will be drawn from our community colleges -- will receive practical training in advanced manufacturing technologies and will be encouraged to transfer to industry to assist in the implementation of new technology within the private sector.

The high quality of submissions from several municipalities made the decision of the locations for these centres extremely difficult, but we are convinced that the choice of Peterborough and Cambridge as the sites for these centres is prudent from the point of view of Ontario industry as well as for the long-term viability of the centres themselves.

With the new microelectronics centre in Ottawa, combined with the Cambridge and Peterborough centres for advanced manufacturing technology, our government, through BILD, has now committed close to $70 million to establish high-technology centres. In addition, we expect to have further BILD high-technology announcements in the new year.

I believe that with these measures we are taking significant steps towards initiating a new era of technological advance for Ontario manufacturers and are positioning our industries with the help of this government to reap the full benefits of high-technology innovation and the industrial applications.

TAX GRANTS FOR SENIORS

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, my last formal report to this Legislature on the 1981 property and sales tax grant program for seniors was on October 29. Recently, I have provided a comprehensive update to the honourable members in the form of a letter. At that time I detailed the progress of the program and also made the commitment that my ministry would continue to make every effort to get as many property tax grant cheques as possible to Ontario seniors by Christmas.

I would now like to report on our recent progress towards achieving that goal.

10:40 a.m.

By December 16, 526,894 applications for the second instalment of the 1981 property tax grant had been received by the ministry. Of this number, 484,831 -- or 92 per cent -- have been processed and cheques generated. Included in this total are 45,701 cheques produced in the last two weeks alone. Of these, more than 30,000 have been mailed in time for postal delivery by Christmas.

However, we judged that the remaining 14,555 cheques produced earlier this week stood a good chance of not clearing through the postal system in time. Consequently, to make sure that senior citizens receive these cheques before Christmas, we have made special arrangements for their delivery through our network of regional assessment offices.

In Metropolitan Toronto and other major urban centres, this will mean hand delivery of the cheques by our ministry assessment staff directly to seniors' doors, while in other areas the cheques will be delivered by the local post offices for distribution by letter carriers or through postal boxes.

This hand delivery method has proved to be a most efficient distribution system for my ministry during periods of postal disruption, and I am personally very pleased with the willingness of my staff to perform this task at this time. This special customer service measure will ensure that as many seniors as possible will receive their cheque in time for the holiday season.

Furthermore, I would point out that this last mail-out and special delivery effort leaves the ministry with a balance of 48,439 applications. Of this number, we expect about 17,000 to be processed for payment before year end. At that point, therefore, we will have successfully serviced 95 per cent of applications received, which in turn will leave about 31,000 applications to be processed.

This final total comprises two groups. The first are people who have only recently filed their applications. For example, we are still receiving over 1,000 new applications each week. Second, there is a group of applications involving a wide variety of problems such as ineligibility and insufficient information.

Inevitably, these will require a great deal of individual attention. My staff are working diligently to contact these applicants to acquire the correct information to determine eligibility. However, our experience in this and other programs tells us that it could take some time to contact and clear the residual of difficult cases.

Finally, we estimate there are 40,000 people who became 65 between July 1 and the end of the year, and who are not due for payment until 1982. I am pleased to report that these people will be receiving their applications on target very early in the new year.

I have been very straightforward with this Legislature in the acknowledgement of several technical problems associated with the 1981 Ontario tax grants for seniors program. I have already recognized the work of members' constituency offices in dealing with inquiries. However, as this report today clearly indicates, the ministry has moved quickly to resolve these difficulties to the extent that 95 per cent of all applications received by the Ministry of Revenue will be fully processed by Christmas. Given the complexity and scale of a program of this magnitude, I am pleased with the considerable progress my ministry has achieved.

MUNICIPAL ASSESSMENTS

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, I have a second statement. The member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) directed a question to me in the House on December 14 concerning the assessment of certain properties in the city of Toronto. The honourable member raised five examples in support of his assertion that, and I quote, "Assessors are not making a conscientious reinspection of these various properties." He went on to say, and again I quote, "I understand they are inspecting them from a slowly cruising vehicle, presumably with a chauffeur at the wheel."

Before I provide specific information to the honourable member on those subject properties, I would like to highlight the procedures which every assessor follows during reinspections.

Prior to commencing a reinspection of a property, the assessor reviews the records of the property to familiarize himself with all pertinent data, including the issuance of building permits. The assessor visits the property to contact the resident for the purpose of gaining access to the property. If the resident is not at home, the assessor will leave a notice indicating that he was there and requesting the resident contact him to arrange a mutually convenient time for a return visit. At the same time, the assessor will complete a visual inspection of the exterior of the property, noting any improvements.

If the resident does not subsequently contact him, the assessor will attempt to personally visit the property again for the purpose of completing an interior inspection. If the resident is not at home for that second inspection, the assessor will again leave a notice of his visit, verify the data collected on the last visit and, to the best of his ability, assign a value to the property.

I would now like to set the record straight by reviewing the properties in the order in which the member for London Centre presented them.

First, 411 Dupont Street: The member states that the assessor did not enter the property. The facts are that the assessor visited the property on October 3, 1980, and no one was home. The assessor left a notice at the property advising the owner to contact him to arrange an appointment for an inspection. The owner called the assessor October 6, 1980, and advised that unless he had a proper letter of authority the assessor could not inspect his property.

The assessor attempted to deliver a letter of authority and do the inspection simultaneously on October 8, 1980. The owner advised the assessor to deliver the letter to his home and he would advise him further about doing the inspection. The letter was delivered that same day. The owner did not contact the assessor until he had received his assessment notice mailed this fall.

123 Cothingham Street: The assessor visited the property on February 29, 1980, and again on August 4, 1980, and found no one at home. He revisited the property in the evening and spoke with the owner's daughter, leaving a notice with his name, address and telephone number, advising her to have her father contact him for an appointment to conduct an interior inspection of the property. The owner did not contact the assessor until he received his assessment notice mailed this fall.

273 Brunswick Avenue: This is a situation similar to the one I have just mentioned. The property was visited on June 8, 1981, and again on August 26, 1981. Since no one was home, the assessor left a notice requesting the owner to contact him for an appointment to inspect the interior of the property. Once again, the owner did not contact the assessor until he received an assessment notice this fall.

405 Dupont Street: The assessor visited the property on May 1, 1980, and no one was home. The second visit was in June, at which time the owner refused permission to the assessor to inspect the interior of the property. However, the owner did respond to questions of the assessor at the door. Based on this information, the assessment was made and a notice was mailed in the fall. Upon receipt of the notice, the owner contacted the assessor and an interior inspection of the property was completed on November 26, 1981. An amended notice reflecting a revised assessment was then issued.

804 Euclid Avenue: The assessor conducted an interior and exterior inspection of the property on April 15, 1981. An assessment notice was delivered in the fall. The owner is dissatisfied with his property assessment. He has, of course, the right to lodge a complaint with the regional registrar of the Assessment Review Court, the final date for filing an appeal being January 12, 1982. The owner has been advised of his right to appeal.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate a point I made yesterday. The assessors, in not only the Toronto regional office but in all 31 regional assessment offices across Ontario, are always available and willing to meet with ratepayers to discuss their assessments. While we have established the open house program for that very purpose, I want to stress that a ratepayer can always meet with the assessor at the regional office during regular business hours any time throughout the year.

Mr. Peterson: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: It is obvious the facts that the honour- able minister has gleaned in some of these particular instances are different from the facts that we have been able to ascertain. I am not impugning the minister's credibility; I am saying he has different information sources than we have.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): I do not see this as a question of privilege at this point.

Mr. Peterson: It is, because the minister is presenting a set of facts to this House --

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of privilege.

Mr. Peterson: I think it is.

The Acting Speaker: I've just ruled that it is not.

Mr. Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Could you give us some guidance in this regard? If a minister stands up in ministerial statements and speaks for five or 10 minutes or longer about statements made by a member, apparently to dispute statements that have been made by a member, the minister certainly has the right to do that.

The question I have on the matter of the point of order is, could you advise us as to what circumstances a member on this side of the House can then stand up to defend his reputation after such a series of ministerial suggestions? If he cannot do it at the time on a point of privilege, when would it be germane to debate in this House, for the member to stand up and do what he believes would be defending his reputation in this matter?

10:50 a.m.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the member for Hamilton West. Question period will follow. Further, as the question of privilege was raised, the minister has dealt with an issue and there will be plenty of opportunity to follow it up.

Mr. Peterson: Because of the difference in the facts, Mr. Speaker, as there is obviously in this circumstance, I think you have the obligation, sir, to hear me out, as does the minister so that he can make a response or so you can make a determination. This is my question of my privilege. We are not disputing the subject.

The Acting Speaker: Make your point quickly.

Mr. Peterson: My point quickly, sir, is this: The facts as I have ascertained them and as our research has ascertained them are different than the ones the honourable minister presented to this House. I am not suggesting for a moment that there could not be error, perhaps on our side, perhaps on their side, but I want to tell you, sir, that subsequent to the publication of this discussion in the House I have had at least 20 telephone calls from ratepayers in the city of Toronto. At least half of them have told me there was absolutely no notice, be it verbal or written or of any other type, before massive increases in assessment were imposed upon them, in the range of 400 to 500 to 600 per cent.

I think the minister should be aware that his information system is not completely accurate or does not conform with the common perception of most taxpayers in this city.

Mr. MacDonald: A related point of order: Mr. Speaker, I am rather intrigued with what is happening today. On two or three occasions the chair has exercised the right and the obligation to exercise its judgement as to when a point of order has been made. Is there not an equal right and obligation on the chair to exercise its judgement when a minister has answered a question and wanders off into irrelevancies? If the chair is going to exercise judgement in chopping down the opposition, is there not an obligation on the chair to exercise its judgement when too lengthy answers are given to something of that nature?

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member. We will continue with statements.

Mr. MacDonald: What is your reply to that, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: They are statements, they are not questions anyway.

Mr. MacDonald: It is an uneven application of the rules; judgement to chop down here and not judgement to chop down there.

The Acting Speaker: The Speaker yesterday spoke very eloquently on this. There is no further comment by the Acting Speaker. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has two statements.

CO-OPERATIVE HEALTH SERVICES OF ONTARIO

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring the House up to date on the status of Co-operative Health Services of Ontario, a now defunct company which offered individual and group health care plans to Ontario residents. Members may recall that the superintendent of insurance revoked this company's licence to operate under the Prepaid Hospital and Medical Services Act on February 6, 1981, because it was not financially viable. The Clarkson Company Limited was appointed as liquidator on February 9 to administer the estate and realize the assets of the company and pay as many creditors as possible.

Since February 9, the liquidator has been working efficiently and diligently with my staff to have the matter resolved. I am pleased to announce that the liquidator has recently negotiated a very attractive settlement with the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, thanks to the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Drea) having moved in very quickly to retrieve the assets pledged by the co-op shortly before its licence was revoked.

On October 30, Master Dunn of the Supreme Court of Ontario, approved the settlement in which the bank agreed to pay $550,000 in cash to the co-op's estate and to withdraw any claim to the assets available to unsecured creditors. It was a phenomenal settlement.

The bank would also have had claim to approximately $300,000 as an unsecured creditor against the assets of the co-op. By withdrawing its claim it will leave a larger sum of money to be distributed among many small subscribers who still have outstanding claims.

To date, the liquidator has determined that there are 31,716 claimants entitled to compensation, consisting mainly of individuals from groups plans, travel subscribers and pay-direct subscribers.

To date, the liquidator has (1) realized all of the co-op's liquid assets, (2) paid all the outstanding claims made by the employees of the city of Toronto, (3) closed the offices of the co-op and sold the computer by tender and all the furniture and fixtures at auction, and (4) reviewed all claims received by the co-op and sent out proof of claim forms to 31,716 individuals and groups.

More than 70 per cent of the proof of claim letters have already been returned to the liquidator. However, the liquidator anticipates that it will still take some time to process all the new claims which are arriving and which still relate to the liquidation period.

I also want to report that legal action has been commenced against various parties which are indebted to the co-op and the liquidator. If the actions are successful, another substantial amount may be realized for the estate. As a matter of fact, as a result of the bill passed by the Legislature some time ago, it appears to be settling and we expect the matter will result in substantial funds being made available.

At this time a date cannot be given for distribution of the estate, but it is hoped there will be an early resolution.

COMPUTERIZED PROCESSING OF RECORDS

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House an innovation that will take effect in the spring regarding the production of birth, death and marriage certificates.

By mid-1982, all Ontario birth, death and marriage certificates, which are now produced manually by the registrar general's office of my ministry, will be prepared by computer.

Installing a computer, together with a highly automated mailing system, is expected to significantly streamline the operation and reduce overall operating costs over the course of a year by an estimated $250,000, and at this rate the computer will pay for itself in a few years.

In the majority of cases the introduction of automation will eliminate several costly and time-consuming manual tasks, such as index searching, record retrieval and the manual stuffing and metering of envelopes. Of course, we will retain the ability, in an emergency, to issue certificates manually should our computerized system break down temporarily.

In the last year, the registrar general's office issued 300,000 birth certificates, 30,000 marriage certificates and 33,000 death certificates. Although growth in the number of certificates processed has been stable over the past few years, inflation has and will continue to increase processing costs. I would therefore like to commend the registrar general's office for arriving at a solution that will not only improve the level of service but decrease operating costs at the same time as part of our continuing service.

There is one additional benefit that I would like to mention. Wallet-sized birth and marriage certificates have been redesigned, and the new format will be compatible with the automated process and consistent with the uniform size recommended by the Vital Statistics Council for Canada.

By way of background, in 1978 the Vital Statistics Council, representing operations in Canada, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories and Statistics Canada, agreed that a uniform wallet-sized certificate would be desirable. British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have already accepted the new format, and we are as well and will be introducing it.

The new birth and marriage certificates also will have a number of improved security features considered by our country's security forces, by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, to be far superior to the present certificates and virtually impossible to counterfeit.

EMERGENCY PLANS BILL

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, today I am tabling a draft emergency plans bill designed to provide a comprehensive framework for emergency planning and response by municipalities and the province.

We are tabling the draft bill so that all honourable members can be aware of what is being proposed and to encourage further public input before legislation is introduced during the next session.

An interministerial committee was established in 1980 to prepare draft legislation on the subject of emergency planning and response. Last summer, I released a discussion paper, including the draft legislation, for public comment. Public response was received, particularly from municipalities, and reviewed by the ministries of the Solicitor General and Municipal Affairs and Housing. Amendments were made to the draft legislation as a result of this public comment, and we will be happy to consider further suggestions from any honourable member and any other interested citizens.

Also today, I am tabling the independent study of the Mississauga evacuation by the Institute for Environmental Studies at the University of Toronto. Some honourable members will recall that the government committed itself to an independent study in the aftermath of the Mississauga emergency in November 1979. It was felt that detailed study of that emergency by a group outside government would be helpful to our own emergency planners and those in other jurisdictions.

11 a.m.

The report by the institute has proved to be a very thorough and useful document. It was given wide circulation in draft form to the various ministries involved, to municipal officials in Mississauga and to fire, police and social service agencies.

Many of the institute's recommendations have already been acted upon in the various reviews done by each ministry and agency. I am sure the document will be of continuing use as we upgrade and refine our emergency planning procedures.

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, there was concern voiced in this House yesterday regarding certain children's mental health services in this province. I wish to address and allay those concerns and misconceptions.

The member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) charged yesterday that our facility known as White Oaks Village was being closed and that children were going to be "dumped on the community" as a result.

Yes, White Oaks is being closed. We announced some time ago that it would be closed by March 31, 1982, because it would be simply too costly to renovate it to acceptable standards to meet a need that now can be met elsewhere.

We announced at the same time, and I can only assume the honourable member opposite did not read his copy of the news release, that the emotionally disturbed boys in residence at White Oaks would be accommodated in alternative community programs, including 15 new spaces at CPRI in London.

In so far as the current White Oaks program is concerned, there are 25 boys in residence there. By December 22, when the Christmas break period begins, four of the youths will have completed their programs at White Oaks. The other 21 boys will be going home for the holidays but will be back January 4. Following their return from Christmas break, the boys will stay at White Oaks until their transfer to other treatment centres.

We have no intention of dumping anyone on the community. On the other hand, the member may be concerned because some children will be spending Christmas at home and in their communities. Frankly, I am glad for them.

There were also questions raised in this House yesterday regarding South Shore School in Sudbury. Again, the allegations were wrong. South Shore School does not have 120 children in care, as was suggested; it has 68. Half of those attend school on the property, while the other 34 attend McMillan school in the community.

We are not destroying the South Shore School program. Indeed, a new $1-million school on the Algoma Sanitorium site is just about completed. It will replace the old school, which required massive renovations. I find it curious that we are criticized for that.

There was also the inaccurate statement that children benefiting from the South Shore School program will be sent south for treatment. That is simply untrue. I want to assure this House that those children will be provided with treatment programs and other services in Sudbury, as they have in the past.

The member yesterday also spoke of another attempt to destroy the Humber Bay clinic, a children's mental health program serving the south Etobicoke and south Peel areas. I wish to assure this House that we will not be destroying Humber Bay but strengthening it.

Two thorough reviews of the operations of the Humber Bay Child and Family Clinic have been carried out recently, and they will help in developing the most appropriate services for the catchment area. While we intend to divest ourselves of that facility, and this was discussed with board members some time ago, we intend to continue to support it financially and otherwise, and we intend to investigate other ways in which we can provide these types of services to the citizens of south Etobicoke and south Peel.

There was a suggestion that with the so-called destruction of Humber Bay, the program would be transferred to our Thistletown centre. As I said, Humber Bay is not closing, and I have no idea where the Thistletown reference came from. Certainly there is no plan to start a Humber Bay program at Thistletown. The Humber Bay program will serve south Etobicoke and Peel and will continue in that area.

Yesterday, the member opposite also most unfairly attacked the province for the programs and services provided for troubled children. He said we seemed to be saying to parents, and I quote: "Look after your own kids. We in this province are not taking any responsibility." That is a most misguided perception.

As the member knows, or certainly should know, there is a total of 81 residential and nonresidential centres throughout Ontario for emotionally disturbed children and youth. The budget this year for that line item alone is almost $73.5 million. The year before, the figure was approximately $64 million. In the past five years, the budget for those programs has been increased by 67 per cent. That is most certainly not a reduction in our commitment to these children and their families.

I hope this brief statement has addressed the concerns raised yesterday by the member for Scarborough West. I wish he would find out the facts before leaping to his feet. This is the same member who in June surprised me and everyone else by alleging that children were being placed in jail in northern Ontario because there were no other facilities for hard-to-serve children. He was wrong. He later said he had not meant to say "jail" and said he was "provoked" into doing so. I call that irresponsibility, not provocation.

This is the same member who, on October 19, criticized my ministry for its alleged lack of progress in the area of day care and day-care initiatives. He alleged we were planning a $750,000 television campaign when that had never been our intention. He said we had reneged on our commitment to fund 20 day-care spaces for handicapped children in Metro when, in fact, we had agreed to provide 28.

The member accused us at that time, in that regard, of not having paid, to use his term, one red cent to Metro for those handicapped spaces. He was right. We had not paid one red cent. We had paid seven million red cents, or $70,000, in support of that addition. Again, he was wrong.

Against that backdrop, I hope the honourable member will be more committed to fact and less to histrionics when he next takes the floor.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I could never compete in histrionics with the honourable minister across the way who today is again distorting things I have said and is again giving half the facts. If I do make errors on occasion, and I do not accept all the errors he is alluding to here, I do not try to distort the facts to cover up mismanagement in his ministry as he is doing now.

ORAL QUESTIONS

The Deputy Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition.

[Applause].

Mr. Smith: I thank the members of the House for their kindness in that greeting. I appreciate it very much.

URANIUM CONTRACTS

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my first question of the Minister of Energy. There is a report in the Hamilton Spectator of December 17 that says, quoting a Hydro official, "Hydro plans to renegotiate the uranium contracts starting in February." Can the minister confirm whether that is true? Can he tell us whether he has analysed what will be the cost to Ontario of getting out of the contract and what the cost would be of staying in the contract?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I know of no plans to renegotiate the contract.

Mr. Smith: May I draw the minister's attention to this article, which I will be glad to send over to him. It says that a senior Hydro official said the utility plans to renegotiate the contracts in February. While he is looking at that, might the minister consider why the reports are that Denison Mines will be claiming that its costs of production, which we have to pay plus a $5 profit on top of that, are approximately twice what they were predicted to be when the select committee on this matter met back at the end of 1977 and the beginning of 1978?

A New York firm then predicted a $22 price of production which would go up with inflation. We are told now that the price of production claimed by Denison is more in the realm of $50. Can the minister give us an explanation for this, given that it might cost the people of Ontario somewhere between an extra $500 million and an extra $1.2 billion because of this discrepancy?

Hon. Mr. Welch: As I understand the question, the honourable member will know that the contracts are very specific with respect to the strict auditing of costs; so whatever claim is being made for costs is subject to audit. I am quite satisfied the auditing procedures will supervise that particular matter. There is no doubt there has been an increase in those costs. I understand about 80 per cent of any increase is related to inflation. Another 20 per cent is related to safety regulations and some changes in design.

11:10 a.m.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister, since Ontario Hydro now admits that the extra costs it is going to have to pay for uranium will be upwards of $50 million a year and that the interest-free, up-front loans it has had to provide to the mining companies to expand their facilities to meet these contracts and everything else they produce is now something more than $600 million rather than $340 million, why has the government not exercised the contractual right it has under the contract of giving five years' notice to opt out? Admittedly, five years puts it down the road a little time, but why has it not exercised that contractual right?

And, upon quiet reflection, does the minister not think that the government made a mistake when it rejected the Ontario Hydro board's initial proposal in 1973 that the way to handle this situation was to put those mines under public ownership, like the heavy water plants are, as part of the Hydro system?

Hon. Mr Welch: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important to recognize that some of these figures being used were not discovered for the first time the day before yesterday. If the honourable member has been following the Ontario Energy Board hearings, Hydro at the OEB hearings last summer indicated something with respect to cost, if that is the right way to put it, in regard to protecting the security of supply for Ontario electrical customers, and related that to what it would be on hydro bills.

I am sure there is no member in this House more knowledgeable about these contracts than the member who just asked about them, because he went through these contracts very carefully. I think under the circumstances, before he passes judgement, he has to understand the circumstances at the time of the negotiation of the contracts. It is very important. It is not particularly clever to have hindsight some years later; 20-20 vision is always there. One has to call the shots as one sees them at the time. The honourable member then, because of his knowledge of the contracts, will know that the earliest possible cancellation date for Denison is 1993 and the earliest possible date for Rio Algom is 1989.

Mr. Smith: Since the world price for uranium is now less than half of what we are going to be forced to pay for the uranium we have contracted for under this unfortunate contract, and since we cannot get out until 1993, will the minister let the people of Ontario know whether he agrees that the total loss to Ontario might well be over $1 billion over the life of this contract, because of this discrepancy and because Hydro was overtaken by events and did not realize uranium prices would go down?

Will he agree also that we have lost $500 million in the Petrosar deal because Hydro did not realize the price of oil would go up; $460 million in Wesleyville because Hydro did not realize oil was going to go up; about $411 million at the Bruce heavy water plants because Hydro did not know demand was going to go down?

With Hydro consistently being overtaken by events and thus losing a total of $3.5 billion because of these mistakes, does he not think the select committee should be reconstituted and given real power to oversee these decisions that Hydro keeps making and that cost the people of Ontario dearly?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I simply repeat what I said to the member for York South. I suppose it is always a comfortable position to be in of making all sorts of pronouncements on the basis of the experience that follows the events. I remind the member that when people are negotiating contracts --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Let us just give an opportunity to understand. When one is charged with the responsibilities of ensuring a continuation of electrical power for the people of this province -- and, I remind the member, at rates we should be proud of, compared with those in other jurisdictions in North America; I do not think we should overlook that particular fact -- matters of security of supply are very important.

One has to understand that decisions are being made in the context of the facts available at the time. It would be difficult for me to project what the total cost might be without knowing what the price of uranium might be at any particular time in the future, but I feel quite sure the decision that was taken with respect to these contracts must be hailed every day in places like Elliot Lake, where there are hundreds of people at work, compared with what might be the fate of some people in similar mining in other parts of this country. At least we look after the people of Ontario in many ways with respect to these contracts.

POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS IN LEGISLATIVE BUILDING

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to direct a question on the matter of PCBs to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton) or the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Wiseman). It is my understanding that those two gentlemen are now conferring in the Speaker's office. Since only they would have the information, I wonder if one of them would be good enough to come out.

I will start with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie), because his ministry does have a certain responsibility for occupational health, and there is a poor chap working down there beside the transformers plus a number of other people here.

Here is the Minister of Government Services. I will direct my question to him.

A very real danger exists here at Queen's Park with respect to 3,495 litres of PCBs in the three electrical transformers in this building. There was a minor transformer fire in Toronto, as we recall, in December 1977. Understanding the problems of Binghamton, can the minister tell us what plans he has to get rid of those PCBs in all three transformers, particularly in the those that are leaking, and to replace the PCBs with other coolant materials?

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Speaker, since the Leader of the Opposition brought this question up this morning on a point of privilege, I have been meeting with my people as well as people from the Ministry of the Environment. We have just had a chat with them.

There were five drops under one of the transformers, I believe. Under the other one, there was estimated to be approximately 30 drops over a period of approximately five years. This had been there for quite some time. The people from the Ministry of the Environment have told me there is nothing to worry about with such a small amount.

These rooms are completely sealed off from any air intake going to any other part of the building. In fact, when the environmental people came down this morning, they had to get through three different locked areas to get in to where it is. Where they are located, there is enough of a wall or holding area to look after all the oil that is contained in these areas, more than double if there was such a thing as a spill.

They have assured me that we are in no danger. It is not a leak as we know it.

Mr. Roy: Call it a small drip.

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: Well, it is really not a drip if there are five drops and 30 over five years. Every five years our people test the oil there, and it could be a little bit from that.

We are aware of it. All three ministries have been checking it out this morning, and it is under control.

Mr. Smith: The situation is that although the doors are locked, they are not sealed off and air does get in and out of those rooms. The person tending those transformers told our researcher when he visited that they were aware the stuff under the transformer was PCBs. They did not want to get into the whole business of cleaning it up because of all the decontamination procedures.

Given the danger of fire, which is after all a greater danger than leakage, will the minister take steps to have the PCBs replaced by other less dangerous coolants through a retrofill system? Is the minister not aware that there is a retrofill system, developed by a Canadian, that has now been licensed by the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States? They are going to go about replacing the PCBs in Sheraton hotels shortly. Why are we not replacing the PCBs in public buildings at least, and in hospitals as well as this Legislative Building, here in Ontario?

11:20 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: As I said before, if there is any danger at all, we will take steps to correct that. From meeting our people this morning and the people from the Ministries of the Environment and Labour, I understand there is no danger like that.

I understand a call came to my regional office from the Liberal research department early in the week, saying they had someone connected with one of the universities who was up on PCBs and so on and could they look at the three we have in place. Being the good people we are, we allowed them to come in and have a look. Now, with the experts in the other two ministries as well saying there is no problem, I am assured there is no problem; but if there is, we will certainly correct it.

Mr. Smith: Is the minister not aware of what happened to this skyscraper in Binghamton, where I am sure the experts also said there was no problem but where a fire occurred and because of the contamination the building is virtually a write-off now, even though it was a relatively small fire?

Given that we have PCBs not only in our own buildings here but also at Mount Sinai, Toronto East General, Toronto General, Toronto Western, several schools, secondary schools, the university and stadiums and so on, has the minister explained to you, Mr. Speaker, why this province is not moving to take the PCBs out of those transformers and replace the coolant with something that is less dangerous? Why wait for a fire to occur and then scramble to try to do something about it?

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: I think I have answered the question. I will just say I find it hard to believe that the Leader of the Opposition would try to scare people, in my opinion unnecessarily, at this time of year. Certainly we may have a fire, and one can always use examples. I know it is the member's last day in the House, but I really do not think he should scare people unnecessarily. If there is a problem anywhere, we will look after it, but please do not scare people.

The Deputy Speaker: A new question; the member for Ottawa Centre.

[Applause].

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to ask any kind of critical question in view of the suggestion by the member for Lanark (Mr. Wiseman) that, this being the Christmas season, no criticism is in order. None the less, I want to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food, since the government has now broken his promise that he would have an agricultural plan which would be announced in the Legislature by today.

Can the minister explain why his representatives on the task force are party to recommendations which in effect gut the recommendations of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture task force by refusing to take any action to impose a moratorium on bank foreclosures, despite the fact that this has been done by Saskatchewan, but not by Ontario; by telling the province not to re-enter the long-term credit field, despite the fact this is done in Alberta and in Quebec; and by refusing to make any recommendations about involvement in land banking on a long-term basis, despite the fact this has also been done in the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan?

How can the minister claim that anything he comes up with before Christmas is going to solve the problems of farmers when the major recommendations of the Biggs task force have been thrown out of the window before the minister even sat down to look at them with his government?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member has a copy of this report. I personally had it delivered to him this morning. He knows everything in the report. It is signed by the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. I took them to lunch and spent one hour with them, one of the top farmers in Ontario, the president of the federation of agriculture and two deputy ministers. I gave them no directions. This is their report.

There was no guidance from my ministry on this report. It is their report that is before the member.

Mr. Cassidy: I do not know if the minister understands how government works. I believe he is acquainted with a certain Duncan Allan, who happens to be the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Food and who, therefore, was there preparing this report and was clearly carrying orders from the government to gut the recommendations of the OFA and to come up with something which they say will be a response only to short-term adjustment problems.

Is the minister not aware that the farmers who were here yesterday and the farmers who have been raising concerns across the province are also talking about the long-term problems under which they have been put because of the high interest rates and the lack of agricultural policy coming from this government? How does he expect the 80,000 or 90,000 farmers in this province to survive the present interest rate crisis when, at best, only several thousand farmers will be assisted even if what is left in this report is implemented before Christmas?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I will try to respond to the member's comment that I personally do not understand the operations of government. We know he never will understand --

The Deputy Speaker: I do not think that is the question.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Well, he asked me. The report is fair. They responded fully to the Biggs report. If he would read both reports --

Mr. Cassidy: They gutted it.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: They did not. They responded as they thought fit. The member is telling the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture he does not know how to represent the farmers. That is what he is saying.

Mr. Cassidy: I am saying your deputy minister called the shots there and he was under orders to take that stuff away.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: He is telling that to the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. We are disappointed in him. We believe in the president of the federation of agriculture.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, when the action committee gave its report, I believe it indicated that $60 million was a good starting point but that if it was proven more than $60 million was needed, it was hopeful the government would continue to assist those farmers in need. When the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) made his statement, he said the government would make available $60 million in additional funding for this purpose.

My question is, if he finds it is going to take considerably more than $60 million to give those farmers in need the assistance they must have, is the minister prepared to recommend to the Treasurer, and will the Treasurer be prepared to accept, that more than $60 million must be committed?

Second, how does the minister intend to implement the program? Is the program going to be made available to all farmers who are in need, or is he going to select certain groups of farmers in need of this program? In other words, is more than $60 million going to be made available if it is needed? How is the program going to be implemented?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, the member is reading something into the report that I have not been able to read into it. Let me read from the report, "The province should allocate a pool of $60 million in 1982 to fund its share of this special assistance program." It is there in black and white on the last page of the report.

There is no indication to me that it will take more or less. I went by that report. The member is trying to read something into it that the committee did not put into it. Our Treasurer has responded this morning that he is ready to put up the $60 million. We have to work out the details.

Mr. Riddell: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I anticipated what was coming this morning, and I phoned the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. I spoke to Ralph Barrie, and he made it very clear to me that their proposal was to have an open-ended program and that if $60 million was not sufficient they fully expected the government would commit more. That came from one of the --

The Deputy Speaker: I am having difficulty deciphering your point of privilege.

Mr. Cassidy: I hesitate to ask this of the Minister of Agriculture and Food, but it concerns the announcement he has promised about the special assistance program for farm adjustment directed to farmers who are hardest hit by the interest rate increases and who are in dire straits. If the announcement is made before Christmas, will the minister undertake on behalf of the government that home owners, who are also in dire straits because of the increase in mortgage rates and the effect that is having on their being able to hang on to their homes, will also qualify for an assistance program coming from this government?

Is it the government's position that it was prepared to respond when farmers took direct action in Port Elgin and by depositing dead livestock down in Toronto? Must home owners do likewise in order to get action from this government to rescue them from their difficulties?

11:30 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I am more than disappointed. There is no good farmer out there associated with depositing dead animals in this city. In fact, the good farmers out there are very disappointed in that action. Let that be known quite clearly.

Mr. Cassidy: How about Port Elgin? Are they not good farmers? Is the minister saying they are not good farmers?

The Deputy Speaker: Order, the minister has the floor.

Mr. Cassidy: There were 30 farmers here yesterday who were in the demonstration at Port Elgin. Is the minister saying they are not good farmers? Will he come to Port Elgin and say that?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister of Agriculture and Food will please continue with his answer.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: The Leader of the Opposition -- no, he is not the Leader of the Opposition.

The Deputy Speaker: Fine, just continue with your answer.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, in response to the leader of the third party, had he been here yesterday he would have heard my comments about those farmers. They are the cream of the crop. Put them any place --

Mr. Cassidy: And they had to demonstrate in Port Elgin to get you to act.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: In response, Mr. Speaker, I am attempting to implement the recommendations of the committee.

PLANT LAYOFFS

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my first question in this Legislature four years ago was to the Premier and it was about the creation of jobs. I would like to ask the Premier: Is he aware of the situation in Woodstock where 30 per cent of the manufacturing labour force -- some 2,100 workers -- are now on indefinite or temporary layoffs out of a total manufacturing work force of about 7,000? Is he aware that 20 of the 27 firms we spoke of now have substantial layoffs, including such major firms as Kelsey-Hayes; Standard Tube; Harvey Woods; La France, where the entire third shift has been laid off; and Timberland, where 36 workers have been put on indefinite layoffs and all of the workers will be off during most of the month of January?

In view of the situation that now exists in Woodstock -- that house prices have come down because of the economic situation, welfare demands are up and the whole community is suffering -- what proposals does the government have or what action has the government taken that will ensure there are more jobs for the workers in Woodstock to help them weather a very difficult winter ahead?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I must confess to the Leader of the New Democratic Party I cannot recall with the same measure of accuracy his first question to me some four years ago or whatever length of time.

Hon. Mr. Pope: It was about coal in Michigan.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The very distinguished Minister of Natural Resources reminds me it was about coal in Michigan. It may have been about jobs, I would never debate that.

I think I answered a similar question relating to another community some six or seven days ago. I really cannot add a great deal to that response. I made it quite clear this government is concerned about the economic situation -- not just as it applies to Woodstock but to many communities across this province.

I did make a point of reminding the leader of the New Democratic Party that in many respects the year-over-year job creation figures were beyond even our own expectations. I think he knows why the economic conditions are as they are. I think in his more logical moments he might understand that much of this relates to the automotive sector.

As I have said on many occasions, the automotive sector is impacted primarily by the economic policies of the government of the United States. I need not remind him that 80 per cent of the production of the automotive sector from this province finds its way to the United States and 75 per cent of farm machinery production finds its way to that country or offshore. This government cannot control the economic policies of the government of the United States.

We have been in the process of giving encouragement to certain sectors of the economy. The leader of the New Democratic Party heard the announcements this morning. I think even he, in his logical moments, when he recognizes the accomplishments of this government, probably takes some modest credit for the decision of this government to expand and invest several millions of dollars in the Ottawa Valley, more particularly in the Ottawa-Carleton region, not too far from his own constituency. I suspect he would not be saying --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I think the question was well answered. A supplementary.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, do not make editorial comments.

The Premier says he is concerned about layoffs, but during the month of November some 4,000 workers lost their jobs, a rate of six workers losing their jobs through layoffs every hour last month. Could he explain why, when he has that concern about layoffs, the members of his party blocked efforts last night in committee to have layoffs referred to the resources development committee over the course of the winter break and have this Legislature look at needed action in order to prevent future layoffs.

Could he also explain why it was not only the back-bench members of his party who blocked efforts to have layoffs referred to the legislative committee, but his House leader, acting on behalf of the Conservative government, also resisted and refused our efforts to have that layoffs committee set up? If he really has that concern, why will he not even let this Legislature discuss it during the winter break?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, this Legislature provides ample opportunity for discussion of this issue. I was not part of the committee's discussion and, unfortunately, I was not here last evening.

Mr. Foulds: You never are.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is fine. I am not going to suggest the member for Port Arthur is somewhat politically motivated, but I think it is quite obvious. I had a lot of fun with the member at a meeting with some of his constituents the other day.

Mr. Foulds: Too bad you didn't answer them.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I had great pleasure in reminding them that if it had been left up to the member, even the debate we had in the cabinet room would never have occurred because of his opposition to the Urban Transportation Development Corporation, and his leader's opposition at one point in history. I enjoyed that thoroughly.

I think it is obvious to all members that one can go to company after company -- it might prove to be somewhat beneficial and it might be interesting -- but the reality is that most of the economic impact is being felt in the manufacturing sector, and it is because of the economic situation, not only in the United States but in some other parts offshore. There is no question the export part of some industries in this province is being impacted.

I think a legislative committee could meet day after day, hour after hour, and come to the conclusion that the automotive sector is one example where no amount of effort on the part of a select committee could alter the economic policies in the United States that would lead to greater consumer confidence and consumer demand. I do not care how he tries to debate it, the reality is that the automotive sector is depressed at the moment because of economic conditions in the United States. He knows that, and if he does not I can take him to several hundred workers at American Motors in Brampton who are fully aware of that being the reason.

Mr. Wrye: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I have just been informed by my office in Windsor that the Ford Motor Company of Canada announced today it will be closing its Ensite engine plant in Windsor next spring permanently. This closure will throw another 500 people in that city out of work. In light of the fact the government gave the Ford Motor Company $28 million for the new Essex engine plant, I ask the Premier these questions: Was he informed of the closing of the Ensite plant in advance of today's announcement? And what does he intend to do to try to keep that facility open and try to keep the people in Windsor working?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) that we were informed at 10 o'clock this morning. I am not familiar with the details. Certainly the Minister of Industry and Tourism will be pursuing it. The member relates the announcement to the government's investment in the Windsor area for the new engine plant, which he may or may not agree with. I would remind him that every single Windsor and Essex county member was present and taking great credit --

Interjection.

11:40 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I just thought I would point out that some of his colleagues were very much in support of that at the time it occurred.

Mr. Martel: All he does is encourage more foreign direction. That is all he does, contrary to the select committee's recommendations.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre has the floor. The member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), your colleague has the floor.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: No job targets were attached to the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program at all, and there are no substantial BILD initiatives targeted for the Woodstock area. Could the Premier say what specific long-term plans the government has in order to ensure there are adequate jobs for the people in Woodstock and they are not forced to move out to Alberta or leave the area they live in right now?

What specific plans does the government have beyond telling them to hope and pray the American economy turns around some time in the future? What specific plans does this government have in order to counter our economic distress? According to the federal government's statistics and forecasts it will lead to unemployment exceeding 400,000 people in this province by 1985 unless there is a new strategy. What new strategy does he have to ensure that does not occur in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not going to comment upon projections from the government of Canada and how they might be interpreted. I would only say, as I did in answering a very similar question a few days ago related to another community, the BILD initiatives, while they did not have an employment figure attached to them, did single out those areas of economic activity which will enhance economic development in Ontario.

If the member does not agree with those initiatives, then I just wish he would go back home to Ottawa and say he does not. I cannot --

Mr. Cassidy: It does not single out St. Thomas; it does not single out Chatham; it does not single out Windsor.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, it singles out certain areas of economic activity. If he does not like what we are doing in the Ottawa Valley he should have the intestinal fortitude to go home to Ottawa and say to the Ottawa Citizen that he disagrees with that initiative.

I have a dollar bill here, Mr. Speaker. I will wager a dollar bill that the member for Ottawa Centre will never make any such statement.

The Deputy Speaker: New question.

Mr. Mancini: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: We have had 20 per cent unemployment in Windsor now for the past two years. There are a further 500 people who are going to be permanently laid off. I think, under these circumstances, you should allow another supplementary.

The Deputy Speaker: No. New question.

Mr. Mancini: We want to know what this government is going to do for Windsor and Essex county. What new economic programs and also initiatives --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Mancini: -- are they going to take up for Windsor, Essex county. There are 500 more people who are going to be permanently laid off. This government sits on its butt and does nothing.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Essex South, your own colleague, the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley), has a new question.

Mr. Mancini: We heard announcements today for Cambridge.

The Deputy Speaker: This is the second time, the member for Essex South. Order.

LIQUOR LICENCE BOARD OF ONTARIO

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. As we already know, the ministry's chief investigator, David Mitchell, was seconded by the ministry in April 1980 to act as the director of the inspections branch of the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario.

Will the minister acknowledge that the termination of Mr. Mitchell's employment at the LLBO was done without the foreknowledge or consent of the ministry? In such a situation where the ministry has parachuted in its own investigator to examine a crown agency, and that crown agency summarily gets rid of the investigator, does the minister not find it surprising at the very least that the ministry so readily acquiesced to the shunting aside of its investigator?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Why would we ever do that? I cannot understand what the member's question is about. The man was director of investigations.

Mr. Roy: You have to answer.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Just a moment. Now come on, Albert. Sit back.

Mr. Roy: You are the minister. You have to answer a question, not ask it.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Want to bet? The fact is that Mr. Mitchell --

Mr. Roy: If you cannot answer the question, get out.

Hon. Mr. Walker: The member has to listen to the answer. If I give it, he has to listen.

Mr. Roy: If he cannot answer it --

The Deputy Speaker: All right, all right. The minister has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Walker: To the member for St. Catharines, I would like to say that Mr. Mitchell did leave. He was seconded from our ministry, where he was director of investigations. He went down to the board to fill a position there as director of investigations; when they had a vacancy, for one thing, and because they did not have a suitable candidate to fill that job in April 1980.

By January 1981, not only had the necessity for his presence down there come to an end, but they had also found a new person to fill the role of director of investigations, which is something they could not have done earlier. They did not have a suitable candidate for director of investigations in April 1980 when Mr. Mitchell went down. Mr. Mitchell's work came to an end. Does the member think we were going to leave him down there all the time? No -- the opposition leader should be careful -- no, we are going to have him come back to our place and work where he belongs. He was seconded from our ministry. Does the member not think we want him back? In any case, what was there left to do?

Mr. Bradley: The minister is saying that when Mr. Mitchell was -- I will say turfed out -- by the board and landed on the ministry's doorstep, the general consensus was that his work was, for all intents and purposes, completed. If that is indeed true, why will the minister not table in this House the reports Mr. Mitchell was making to the deputy minister concerning the goings-on at the LLBO, so that we can determine whether or not he was gotten rid of because of what he was finding out?

Hon. Mr. Walker: First of all, after that question was posed a few days ago in this same area, my understanding was that the reports were in writing. I now gather the reports were verbally given and sent back, and this is confirmed by my colleague sitting beside me, who was the minister of the day. I do not know how we are going to table the verbal communications, but if the honourable member can suggest a way, we might do that as well.

Whatever the case, the situation changed down there. The fact the auditor was called in is attributed to my colleague here, who insisted that the auditor go in and do a report on the matter, and it was properly dealt with. What is the issue? What is the member talking about? I do not even see what he is trying to get at.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, since the minister professes not even to understand the issue, may I outline it for him this way, and could he explain it to the House: if the minister felt a necessity to send an investigator to the LLBO to see what was going on there, and if the investigator did send back reports which showed there were grave irregularities in the place, why is it if his work was done, that either the investigator did not voluntarily resign or the minister did not voluntarily call him back?

Why was it the decision of the LLBO to get rid of the investigator? When a minister sends an investigator to investigate an organization, gets information and then finds his investigator has been shipped back to him, would the minister not agree the ministry has the responsibility to send the investigator back and say, "Don't you stop my investigator; he is getting information for me." Would the minister not agree with that?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, which may clarify the matter before the minister replies --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Under the circumstances, will we allow the Minister of Community and Social Services to respond to the question if it would clarify the issue? We have agreement.

Hon. Mr. Drea: The reason I rise on a point of privilege is that the words have been used, and I think inadvertently, that the minister, and that was me, sent Mr. Mitchell as an investigator to the board. That is not correct. Mr. Mitchell was seconded to the LLBO in April 1980 following the convictions of the chief liquor inspector and the deputy chief liquor inspector. Because of suspensions and because of a criminal trial, neither one of those people had been operating in normal duties at the board for a considerable time.

Mr. Mitchell was sent there as a director to ensure the proper administrative procedures, according to the manual of administration of this government, would be followed until the board could find someone with experience to take the job. He was not dispatched in April 1980 to investigate the board.

11:50 a.m.

UREA FORMALDEHYDE FOAM INSULATION

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. As the minister knows, there are press reports and information directly from the office of Mr. Ouellet to indicate he is proposing some joint federal-provincial program for removing urea formaldehyde foam insulation from the homes where there is a health problem and from the homes where there is a reading of formaldehyde gas in excess of 0.1 parts per million. Have any proposals been made, formal or informal, by Mr. Ouellet to the ministry? If so, what are they?

Whether or not the minister has received them, what is the proposal of his government to deal with this problem? Is he willing to assist even in a minor way towards removing the urea formaldehyde foam insulation from those homes?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I spoke with the federal Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs two days ago by telephone in respect to the telex he had sent me on Monday indicating there was a proposal coming. He suggested in some vague way what some of the arrangements might be. I think he would expect a certain amount of support from the province. The proposal he will submit ultimately to public scrutiny will likely be forthcoming some time after January 1.

He had indicated he intended to do it within a few days when the press reports came out several days ago, but more recently, as a result of our conversation, I think he is intending to make an announcement some time after January 1, which will be in the form of a concrete proposal.

I do not think it appropriate for me to share with the member now the contents of the discussion other than to say there was an indication on his part that he wanted the provinces to play a role financially in the matter. It seemed kind of strange that he was asking us to correct their error. However, that was the submission he put forward. When it comes forward, I will be taking the matter to my cabinet colleagues and asking for their direction.

Mr. Swart: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I am sure the minister must be aware that from the preliminary statistics of his own government's Ministry of Health there are at least 3,000 urea formaldehyde foam insulated homes already identified where the occupants are suffering health problems. Will the minister assure this House that whatever action is taken will be taken quickly?

Will he also assure this House that he will be co-operative with the federal government and not let buck-passing between the two governments cause those people to stay in their homes indefinitely suffering from these very serious health problems?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, it is a very serious matter, of course. We have to assume that we know all the answers on the matter as to whether urea formaldehyde should or should not be removed.

There are some who say that to remove it dislodges the material and makes it unstable. This, therefore, creates a health hazard where one previously did not exist. The member knows that well. There are other aspects of it. I am told by Mr. Ouellet that as a result of some of their studies, they can indicate, or perhaps even prove, that modest corrective measures will resolve the problem in a large number of cases. In any case, all I can say is that until the federal minister puts forward his program we are not in a position to make any comment on his program. We have to see the final picture of it. I have some indications of what his program will be but I think it would be unfair for me to announce those prior to his having the opportunity to make them public.

Mr. Philip: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Does the minister agree with the comments made by Mr. Wilson, the member of Parliament and Treasury critic of the federal Conservative Party, that the reason the minister is not making the announcement now while the House of Commons is in session is that there is very little that is going to be offered. If the proposal turns out to be exactly that, is the member's ministry prepared to step in to the vacuum which the federal government obviously is creating?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I think the latter question is presuming an awful lot; indeed, so is the former question by the sound of it. From what I heard, when he spoke to me, I had an indication from him that it was a fairly substantial program.

LIQUOR LICENCE BOARD OF ONTARIO

Mr. Smith: I have a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, regarding a point that was raised by the former Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and the present Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea). He said the person who was seconded to the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario was sent as a director, and not as an investigator. I would simply say that he was sending back reports regularly regarding what was going on at the LLBO. The present Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Walker), on December 9 in Hansard, is quoted as saying to me: "Does he not understand? He was our investigator; we wanted the guy back. Why would we not?" I simply want the record to indicate that he was obviously regarded as an investigator by the ministry and by the minister. He acted as an investigator, and he was sent back at the instigation of the very people he was investigating.

The Deputy Speaker: I think the point has been made. If I could beg the indulgence of the House, the Minister of Industry and Tourism has an answer to a question previously asked. But before he continues, is it a short, medium or long response?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Short.

The Deputy Speaker: Continue.

INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER REFINANCING

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply to a question from the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) concerning International Harvester. Officials of my ministry have been monitoring the International Harvester refinancing situation very closely, although we are not an active participant. Negotiations for a refinancing package are at a delicate stage, and I cannot comment on them at this time. However, I am informed that International Harvester is confident it will be able to continue its Canadian operation. At present there are no planned major new layoffs, and all employees who are, or will be, on temporary layoff over the normal holiday shutdown will be returning as expected on January 4, 1982.

With regard to the 78 engineering staff employees, International Harvester has been forced by economic conditions, in its view, to consolidate some of its development activities worldwide. This is similar to what Massey-Ferguson was forced to do as a result of its difficulties. I am informed that most of those employees will be offered employment either in other Canadian operations or in related operations of International Harvester.

ONTARIO HYDRO APPROVALS

Mr. Runciman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy. My question relates to layoffs we are now experiencing in the manufacturing sector of this province, and more specifically to the pending layoff of 150 workers at the Black and Decker plant in Brockville. While Canadian manufacturers of power tools, such as Black and Decker, are abiding by the rules, Ontario Hydro is giving a Japanese manufacturer, Makita, a six to nine months' edge in introducing new products to the market by issuing safety approval stickers for Makita power tools without testing. It is thereby bypassing the Canadian Standards Association approval route that Canadian manufacturers follow in accordance with the Canadian electrical code.

Based on this information, is the minister prepared to take whatever action is necessary to discourage Ontario Hydro from carrying on a practice that is discriminatory and economically harmful to the Ontario power tool industry?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the honourable member for giving me notice with respect to this question, in order that we might --

Mr. Peterson: Would you expect otherwise?

Hon. Mr. Davis: There is great merit in it. You should try it some day.

Hon. Mr. Welch: This honourable member was very interested in having an answer. One wonders about the other side.

Mr. Speaker, I am advised that Ontario Hydro's electrical safety regulations require that all electrical equipment used in this province must be CSA-certified, or in cases where a small quantity of equipment is involved and formal submission to CSA cannot be economically justified -- and I underline once again, a small quantity of equipment -- then an alternative approval method has been established whereby this equipment can be approved by Ontario Hydro electrical inspectors.

This safety-related approval service provided by Ontario Hydro is complementary to the CSA approval route. I am further advised by Ontario Hydro that this safety-related service is available to every manufacturer of electrical equipment, including Makita, to which reference has been made, and Black and Decker. I am also advised that Black and Decker is fully aware of this service provided by Hydro.

12 noon

Mr. Runciman: Mr. Speaker would the minister be willing to investigate claims that are in conflict with a number of the points he raised in his answer? These are that Black and Decker has been refused Ontario Hydro equipment approvals on the occasions the company has applied, and on many occasions Japanese equipment receiving Ontario Hydro approval has subsequently failed CSA approval. Further, Makita tools with only Hydro stickers are being sold in many outlets in this province and in Quebec.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to check into the details there.

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Attorney General and Solicitor General (Mr. McMurtry), who I understand was here earlier. I will direct my question to the Provincial Secretary for Justice.

In view of the fact there is a tremendous increase in the number of armed robberies taking place in relation to financial institutions, banks, caisses populaires, credit unions and so on, I wonder if the minister would advise if he is aware of this statement made by the deputy police chief of Ottawa, Tom Flanagan, who is the chairman of the law amendment committee of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police:

"There is a complete lack of co-operation from the bank security people. Because of this refusal to update their security, people are robbing banks the same way Bonnie and Clyde did it. All they have to do is jump over the counter, take the money and run. Bank robberies are the only crime that has continued exactly the way it was years ago."

In view of the fact that the banks have had tremendous increase in profits, and in view of the fact I understand there is a committee looking into the question of armed robberies and security but it will not report for two years, would the minister call in the security people from the banks and discuss with them how they can improve their security, thereby assisting the police of this province?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion sounds quite reasonable and I will convey that to the Solicitor General and Attorney General. I have to say the statement provided by Deputy Chief Flanagan is a very credible statement. I know the man and if he said it there is a lot of truth in it. I will see the Attorney General has this information brought to his attention immediately. Would the member mind sending over a copy of the newspaper clipping?

Mr. Roy: I certainly will send the minister a copy of the editorial in the Ottawa Citizen. Is the minister aware that the bank security people --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order please. The holiday season has not quite started yet. We are having difficulty hearing the question.

Mr. Roy: I would ask the minister if he is aware of the response, apparently on the part of the bank security people, that they have taken steps to protect their staff in the event of these robberies. According to Deputy Chief Flanagan the security people in the banks have not taken steps to install bullet-proof glass around the tellers; they have not taken his suggestion that the cash be in a vault like a central depository, or the possibility of planting security bugs within the cash itself. I wonder if these aspects of security might be discussed with the security officials for the banks?

Hon. Mr. Walker: That too sounds reasonable.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. In a recent accident at Inco operations in Levack, a driller was struck by a piece of loose and as a result his leg was amputated above the knee. I would like to send the minister a copy of this picture it I might, so he has an opportunity to look at it.

Is the minister aware that his inspectors only arrived 24 hours after the accident? Even more important, can the minister indicate why it remains the prerogative of Inco to determine what is considered to be a serious accident? They determine when the police have to be called. If they do call the police, they must notify the union; but if they do not contact the police, they do not have to notify the union hall. Why should Inco have the right to determine what is a serious accident, considering the seriousness of the situation?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for forwarding the picture to me.

I do not have the details of this particular case. It is my recollection of the Occupational Health and Safety Act that the union should have been notified in the event of a serious accident or a fatality, in this case a serious accident. I can only say I will have it looked into and report to the member.

Mr. Martel: I want to indicate to the minister that a member of the occupational safety, health and environmental committee was there but he is not as skilled in doing that type of investigation as the people on the inquest team, which is responsible for looking into serious accidents.

The situation is very simple. If Inco decides it is not serious and does not call the police, then the union hall is not notified. And a member of the occupational safety, health and environmental committee underground has no access to a telephone to contact the union. In this instance a man lost his leg.

Under the bill, not only with respect to Inco but also right across this province, I do not think the corporation should be left to determine whether it is a serious accident. That should be left to someone else.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I will have not only the particular case but also the whole issue reviewed.

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I rise to correct the record on my statement of December 11 with regard to the closing of Sprucedale. I said on the record it was Sprucedale and it should have been White Oaks.

I also want to bring a point to the attention of the Minister of Community and Social Services. He said replacement beds would be placed so that the children would be treated in centres closer to their homes, at CPRI in London for those in western Ontario and in Toronto for those from the Hamilton-Wentworth area. I point out to the minister that the present facility at White Oaks is much closer to Hamilton-Wentworth and the Niagara Peninsula than the centres in London or Toronto.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I made it absolutely plain in my remarks in estimates that there was also one resident child from Haldimand-Norfolk who had to go to Hamilton. We also made it very plain that the day program would remain in Haldimand-Norfolk.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order and correction of the record: The minister said today that White Oaks was being closed so the children could be sent to CPRI. Last week he said they were going to be kept in their local areas. Which is it?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member will read the original announcement, we said the children from western Ontario --

Ms. Copps: It's written right here.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I ought to know what I said. I can probably find it here. We made it very plain that 15 were being sent to CPRI, 13 were located in the Metro area, et cetera --

The Deputy Speaker: I think we have had enough on that discussion.

Hon. Mr. Drea: -- and that White Oaks was being closed because the cost of bringing it up to standard was enormous.

Ms. Copps: May I read it into the record?

The Deputy Speaker: No, you cannot read it into the record. You will have to do it at another time. We have taken enough time on this.

Does the member for Scarborough West have a point of privilege?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I will deal with it by press release instead of burdening the House with his misinformation.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much. Before going on to routine proceedings, on behalf of the Office of the Speaker I wish everyone the best of the holiday season to come.

PETITION

ASSISTANCE TO POLISH PEOPLE

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, I would like to read this petition:

"In the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should give serious consideration to granting funds to the Canadian Polish Congress relief fund on a dollar-for-dollar matching basis to private donations raised within the province of Ontario for the purpose of providing emergency medical supplies and food for the people of Poland. The transmittal of these supplies would be subject to the lifting of martial law within Poland and the agreement of the Polish Roman Catholic Church to act as the distribution agent."

12:10 p.m.

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Mr. Treleaven, on behalf of Mr. Eves, from the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments reported the following resolutions:

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

Ministry administration program, $24,437,200; planning, research and development program, $6,433,100; safety and regulation program, $39,299,800; provincial roads program, $374,449,500; provincial transit program, $48,266,000; air program, $3,395,900; municipal roads program, $330,794,700; municipal transit program, $141,952,500; communications program, $1,605,800.

That supply in the following supplementary amount and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982:

Provincial transit program, $18,920,000.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Harris from the standing committee on resources development presented the following resolution:

That supply in the following amount and to defray the expenses of the Resources Development policy field be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982:

Resources development policy program, $2,240,300.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the following substitutions be made: on the standing committee on administration of justice, Mr. Laughren for Mr. Swart, Mr. Spensieri for Mr. Bradley, Mr. Eaton for Mr. Williams; on the standing committee on general government, Mr. Swart for Mr. Wildman, Mr. Epp for Ms. Copps, Mr. J. M. Johnson for Mr. Brandt, Mr. J. A. Taylor for Mr. Runciman; on the standing committee on social development, Mr. O'Neil for Mr. Ruprecht, Mr. Renwick for Mr. R. F. Johnston, Mr. Laughren for Mr. McClellan, Mr. Edighoffer for Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Conway for Mr. Van Horne;

On the standing committee on public accounts, Mr. Di Santo for Mr. Foulds, Mr. Bradley for Mr. Peterson, Mr. Gordon for Mr. Cousens, Mr. Kolyn for Mr. J. A. Taylor; on the select committee on pensions, Mr. Van Horne for Mr. Epp, Mr. Haggerty for Mr. Peterson; on the select committee on the Ombudsman, Mr. Gordon for Mr. Andrewes, Mr. MacQuarrie for Mr. Barlow, Mr. Mitchell for Mr. Dean, Mr. Piché for Mr. Eves, Mr. Treleaven for Mr. Kells.

Motion agreed to.

HOUSE SITTING

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the House continue to sit today until it is prorogued by the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor.

Motion agreed to.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I would like to table the answers to questions 186, 191, 264, 270 and 272 standing on the Notice Paper. (See Appendix A.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the government motions, notice of which has been given and which are printed on the Notice Paper.

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Is it possible that since these are printed on the Notice Paper and will go in the Votes and Proceedings that they could be considered as resolutions by number rather than totally read out?

The Deputy Speaker: That sounds like a good idea. Can we do that?

Hon. Mr. Wells: That will be perfectly agreeable to me, Mr. Speaker.

STANDING COMMITTEES

Hon. Mr. Wells, seconded by Hon. Mr. Snow, moved resolution 12.