Journal des débats 1983-févr-03 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Conway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Respecting the application of standing order 81 of our procedures, I simply want to point out that my colleagues and I view with ongoing concern the fact that some 150 questions placed on the Order Paper during September and October last year remain to be answered. In many cases the information was promised to us on, or soon after, December 17.

I appreciate that in some cases additional time may have been required, but we note it is now February 3 and I hope the government House leader is not under any misapprehension about the importance my colleagues and I attach to the information being sought in several of those questions. We think the information is important to the public business of the province at this time, and I ask you to draw to the government House leader's attention again that standing order 81 is, as we view it, being violated by the uncommon delay in the response to most, if not all, of the 154 questions in this instance.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the government House leader will take note and will act accordingly.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

STOUFFVILLE DUMP

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the honourable members that the Environmental Appeal Board yesterday issued an order that provides for the final closure of the Whitchurch-Stouffville landfill site operated by WMI Waste Management of Canada Inc. and for the continuing environmental protection of that community.

After several months of negotiation, the town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, the local chamber of commerce and residents taking part in the appeal have reached an agreement with the company that satisfies the stringent environmental protection requirements placed upon that site by my ministry. I believe the negotiated settlement ratified yesterday by the appeal board provides an effective solution for the concerns of all the parties to the appeal. The terms of the settlement include:

1. A letter of credit from the company to the province for $590,000 to fund the town's construction of a watermain to serve the 14 homes closest to the landfill site. Connection to the municipal supply is being provided at no cost to the home owners.

2. A maximum limit of 750,000 metric tons of nonhazardous waste is permitted on the site at a rate of up to 2,200 metric tons per day. This limit will enable the company to achieve stable, safe contours for effective long-term surface water management on the closed site.

3. The cutoff date of June 30, 1983, for accepting waste at the site, originally set in the director's ruling of April 1982, has been extended two years to June 30, 1985. If final agreed-to contours are not reached on that date, the company will have until September 30, 1985, to achieve those contours.

4. The environmentally sensitive property north of the working site is barred to waste. The company is restricted to accepting waste on its current operating site with some work permitted on adjacent faces to permit proper final contours to be established.

5. The company is required to provide security bonds in excess of $1 million to ensure safe final closure and continuing and permanent protection to this community. This includes final contouring and landscaping, surface water control, site maintenance and continuing water quality monitoring and analysis, a thorough hydrogeological study and substantial liability insurance as part of a perpetual care fund to meet any future contingency.

6. Under the scrutiny of a neutral third party reviewer, the hydrogeological study will establish programs that will ensure the long-term protection of off-site ground water and surface water for existing and reasonable future uses.

This agreement has been reached in good faith as a result of some long and hard work by people who have the best interests of that community at heart. It satisfies the environmental principles that formed the basis of the order by my ministry's director last April and it satisfies my own concern for the long-term protection of this community.

The paramount considerations in the decision last April were: a safe and secure water supply for those residents closest to the landfill site; no expansion of landfilling operations, especially into the environmentally sensitive land north of the existing site; and a final, environmentally acceptable closure and monitoring of the landfill site for the continued protection of the community.

While the date of closure is later than that set by the director, all these principles have been more than satisfied in the negotiated settlement approved by the appeal board yesterday. My only regret is that the Concerned Citizens of Stouffville organization withdrew from active participation and chose instead not to be a party to this ultimate solution.

More than 25,000 analyses of some 2,000 water samples have been conducted by my ministry, as I said last April. While none of these have shown detectable levels of any hazardous contaminants from the landfill site, the potential has been there. This settlement provides secure water supply for the closest residents and long-term security to the community through proper closure and a continuing monitoring and care program at the site. This should contribute much to the security and peace of mind of the residents of Whitchurch-Stouffville.

FOREST REGENERATION

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to bring the House up to date on my ministry's activities in forest regeneration in Ontario. I am sure the honourable members recognize the economic significance of forestry to our province. More than half of northern Ontario's total economic activity depends on forestry, and in northwestern Ontario more than three quarters of the economy is linked in some way to this most vital industry.

Ontario's forest industry has been relatively more active than any other industrial sector during the current economic recession. My ministry, with assistance from the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development, has done much to help forest companies through these tough times, with a variety of programs: forest improvement and nursery construction, forest management agreements, hybrid poplar development and, most recently, job creation initiatives we have launched jointly with the help of the federal government.

2:10 p.m.

A strong forest industry must be one of our prime objectives, and to have such a strong industry we must have an adequate supply of wood. Right now we are planting the forest that will support our forest industry in the decades to come.

Members may recall that last June I was able to tell the House we had reached our goal of planting two trees for every one harvested.

[Applause]

Hon. Mr. Pope: It is about time the members opposite applauded that accomplishment by our government.

This clearly illustrates how my ministry has succeeded in accelerating the regeneration of our forests in co-operation with the private sector. In the 1982-83 fiscal year we expect to produce a total of 130 million seedlings in the province, many of these in privately owned greenhouses.

Already, 17 private growers under contract to my ministry have produced 23.5 million trees to be planted this spring. Today I am pleased to be able to inform the House that we are negotiating five-year growing contracts with four more growers in northwestern Ontario. These growers are expected to produce almost eight million seedlings annually. Once these negotiations are complete, we will have contracted with private nurseries to produce more than 31 million seedlings in the immediate future.

At Ear Falls we are negotiating with Frank Wiesinger, and in the Dryden area the growers are Evergreen Farms, D. Lick and William J. Schneider. I am also delighted that we have negotiations pending to develop a growing contract with the Indian people of the Whitedog reserve in northwestern Ontario. The agreement of intent for this contract was signed last year by my cabinet colleague the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Henderson).

We now have private greenhouse operators in many one-industry communities, adding to their economic diversity. We have signed contracts with private growers in Thunder Bay, Englehart, Murillo, Swastika, Kirkland Lake, Cochrane, Ramore, Hearst, Dryden, Devlin and Timmins.

I am sure the House knows that one of the prime reasons we have been able to negotiate growing contracts with private greenhouse growers is the demand for seedlings created through our forest management agreements. Since 1980 we have involved forest companies in all aspects of forest management through these agreements. To date, our eight FMAs cover one quarter of the productive forest land in Ontario.

Under these agreements, forestry companies have agreed to accept responsibility for forest regeneration and other management practices. If they do not, their rights to harvest are reduced accordingly. This guarantees a continuous supply of forest products by ensuring that forests are harvested and regenerated on a sustained-yield basis.

The agreements give full consideration to other important resources by withdrawing certain areas from cutting, allowing reserves around areas such as lake and stream shorelines, nature reserves and cottage subdivisions. The specifics of this integrated resource planning are discussed in both 20-year and five-year plans with residents of nearby communities at open houses.

I am pleased to announce that I will be signing five more forest management agreements in the next two months. These agreements include one with Waferboard Corp. Ltd., the first non-pulp and paper company to sign an FMA. Waferboard Corp. is involved in the development of the Romeo Malette forest near Timmins. The other four agreements involve Pineland Timber Co. Ltd. in the Pineland forest, Boise Cascade Canada in the Seine forest and Manitou forest, and Ontario Paper Co. in the Nagagami forest.

These agreements are vital to the future of our forests, helping us to improve forest lands that are insufficiently regenerated. The first eight forest management agreements regenerated, tended or prepared more than 24,000 hectares of valuable forest land during 1982. Almost one third of this total involved lands that were not sufficiently regenerated in the past, cutover lands that were untreated at the time the FMAs were signed.

I am sure members will agree, however, that simply planting trees is not enough. We must always strive to improve both the yield and the value of the forests of Ontario. I know all members have heard about our fast-growing hybrid poplar program, one that has attracted worldwide attention, but they may not be aware that this is not the only species we are improving. Ministry staff are also working on native conifer species, the backbone of our forestry industry.

In 1961, Ontario had only 40 hectares of special seed-producing areas. Today we have 1,000 times that amount, a total of 40,000 hectares. By 1990, virtually all seed will come from such selected sources as these. Our seed orchards will allow us to collect materials from the best trees and grow them in controlled conditions. They are our first generation of superior trees.

Our forest management agreements allow us to move even more quickly in our tree improvement, as the companies have assumed responsibility for regeneration and forest management.

As I mentioned earlier, many of our forestry initiatives are supported financially by the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development.

We are also pleased that the private sector is becoming more involved in forest improvement, something that has helped my ministry in many of its initiatives. Last November, my deputy minister convened a meeting of industry and government staff interested in forestry improvement. The result was a proposal for an Ontario Tree Improvement Council.

I am confident that this council will be valuable in co-ordinating and supporting a comprehensive tree improvement program for Ontario. I believe the formation of this council will be further evidence of how my ministry works productively with the private sector to improve Ontario's forests.

I cannot offer a full assessment of our province's forests without talking briefly about private forest land. I hope members of this House have had an opportunity to examine the green paper on Private Land Forests--a Public Resource, issued by my ministry last fall. My ministry's staff are currently holding a round of public forums to allow interested people to discuss and offer views on private land forests.

As members can see, we are doing much to ensure that Ontario's forest industry remains strong and prosperous well into the future.

SALE OF RENTAL UNITS

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to confirm to the House that a legal action was commenced yesterday in the Supreme Court of Ontario by the registrar of loan and trust corporations exercising his powers under the Loan and Trust Corporations Act on behalf of the trust companies. The plaintiffs are Crown Trust Co., Seaway Trust Co. and Greymac Trust Co.

The defendants named in the action are Leonard Rosenberg; William Player; Andrew Markle; Pierre Desmarais; A. J. Reynolds Mastin; Kilderkin Investments Ltd.; Green Door Investments Ltd.; Greymac Credit Corp.; Maysfield Property Management Inc.; Broadhurst and Bail; Kitamura, Yates, Margolis, Mastin and Champagne; Prousky and Biback; Victor Prousky; David Allport; and the 50 companies that acquired approximately 11,000 apartment units from Cadillac Fairview in November 1982.

Mr. Sargent: And the government of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The purpose of the action is to have the mortgage loans totalling approximately $152 million made by the three trust companies in connection with the Cadillac Fairview sales rescinded on the grounds that they were procured by conspiracy, misrepresentation, breaches of the Loan and Trust Corporations Act and as a result of breaches of fiduciary obligations owed to the trust companies.

In this action, the trust companies seek to trace the moneys advanced under these loans and to recover them for the benefit of the trust companies. As part of the claims being made, the defendants are being asked to account for moneys received --

Mr. Sargent: You are always taking the credit; take some blame once in a while.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: It is nice to have the member for Grey-Bruce back.

As part of the claims being made, the defendants are being asked to account for moneys received and the court is being asked for a declaration that such moneys are impressed with a trust in favour of the plaintiff companies. Other relief is also being claimed.

I would point out that any moneys recovered by the companies in the action to rescind the mortgages would be applied to any claims that the Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. may have against the assets of the companies and if such claims are fully satisfied, then to the payment of preferred shareholders and finally to the payment of common shareholders.

In confirming the commencement of this action, I would like to comment briefly on the fact that the 50 companies that bought the apartment buildings from Kilderkin Investments Ltd. have been added as defendants. A great deal of comment on and speculation about the beneficial ownership of these companies has occurred. I wish to emphasize that the companies are involved in this action not because of the nature of their ownership or any nonresident aspect of the beneficial owners; they have been added because they are caught up or involved in a series of transactions that we are attempting to unravel.

Persons representing these companies were also involved in other aspects of the transactions and in some cases represented other parties to the transactions. Their various rights and obligations can be best sorted out by including them in the action.

2:20 p.m.

In addition to the action for rescission of the mortgages and the tracing of the moneys, which was commenced yesterday, an application was made to the court today and was granted today for the following, until the trial of the action or further order of the court:

(a) The appointment of an interim receiver and manager of the lands and premises that constitute the 11,000 apartment units included in the Cadillac Fairview sale;

(b) An order for the delivery up by all defendants to the receiver of all cash, deposits, cheques, remittances and drafts received or to be received or under the control or direction of any of the defendants relating to rents with respect to the lands and premises since November 5, 1982;

(c) An interim injunction restraining all defendants from in any way disposing of moneys in the possession or control of the said defendants to the extent that the original source of such funds was advances made by the plaintiffs under the mortgages;

(d) An interim injunction restraining the defendants from in any way dealing with or disposing of the lands and premises:

(e) An interim injunction restraining the defendants, Leonard Rosenberg, William Player, Kilderkin Investments Ltd. and Maysfield Property Management Inc., from in any way disposing of or encumbering their assets or removing their assets from Ontario.

In the light of these developments, tenants should, until otherwise advised, make their rental cheques payable to the Clarkson Co. Ltd., the interim receiver-manager. The Clarkson Co. Ltd. will be operating out of the Maysfield Property Management offices and tenants should continue to deal through those offices.

ORAL QUESTIONS

STATUS OF RENTAL BUILDINGS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I must say to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, this is the fattest writ I have seen in some time. It looks to me that he has named almost everybody. I assume my name is not in here; I am not a defendant. We have not had time to sort through this great long list here.

Could the minister, in clear and unequivocal terms, tell us exactly, as of this moment, the state of the tenants? Is it that they report to the Clarkson Co. through Maysfield, as per his statement?

What about the tenants in the other buildings, the other 10,000 or so units that are being managed by Maysfield and Kilderkin? Are they under trusteeship? To whom are they responsible? To whom do they go if they have problems? Could the minister give a clear statement as to the exact status of all the tenants of all the Maysfield-Kilderkin buildings?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I might answer that in two ways.

First, with respect to the rent, as the member and the Legislature know, the tenants were hived out and protected in a very particular way with respect to any increase in rent that they might be required to pay in regard to this type of transaction, in two ways: first, with the passage of the bill putting a five per cent cap on financing costs related to rent, and second, through the Residential Tenancy Commission's guidelines which could limit consideration of rents to a first transaction, and that to be phased in over a period up to five years. Tenants, in effect, have been isolated from events such as this, where multiple sales occur.

Second, I can understand the concern the Leader of the Opposition expresses about tenants in general and these tenants in particular. We all share those concerns. But we have to deal with problems as they present themselves and as options to deal with them present themselves.

In the case of the tenants of the 11,000 units in the Cadillac Fairview properties, they should now clearly understand that their rent cheques are to be made out to the Clarkson Co. Ltd., the interim receiver-manager, at the same address to which they have always sent their cheques. They might be wise to put at the bottom of the cheque, "Re unit such-and-such, address such-and-such," just for their own record.

With respect to other buildings that may be operated by Kilderkin or by Maysfield Property Management Inc., as and if information evolves or develops which allows the government, through the registrar, in whatever role he may play, to exercise options available to it, whether or not they are exactly like this, only the facts can direct.

In the meantime, tenants should continue to pay rents as they ordinarily have until either someone with a mortgage exercises an option, as someone in Ottawa has done, or some other court order or other contractual arrangement is made clear to the tenants. We have now made application with respect to this matter, and as other matters unfold during the course of the investigation we will deal with them appropriately as well.

Mr. Peterson: I assume the interim receiver will continue to manage these buildings, presumably with the help of the staff of Maysfield, and that the minister will proceed in the ordinary course of events through the interim receiver for the increases in rent that have already been applied for.

Presumably the further move the minister has made today will impair even more the financial viability of Kilderkin and Maysfield. This has been in question for a month or two now. Certainly the suggestion is that they are not able to bank. Does the minister have an alternative plan to manage those buildings, in the short term at least, if there is some sort of financial collapse or they are unable to meet their obligations this month?

It is no secret that this transpired today. What happened to the close to $5-million worth of rent cheques that were supposed to be payable on February 1 and 2? Are they in the hands of the interim receiver, Clarkson? Are they in Kilderkin's hands? Where have they gone? Is that rent considered paid? What is happening on all those questions?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The interim receiver has now taken possession with respect to management and control of the 11,000 units and will be receiving rent cheques. As the member will recall from the statement I read, any cash deposits, cheques, remittances or drafts at present under the control or direction of any of the defendants with respect to those lands and premises are now seized by the receiver-manager.

With respect to the rent increases that have been applied for by Maysfield Property Management Inc., one can only assume that since the court has appointed an interim manager-receiver, he will have to make his own determinations about what rent increases may be required to meet the operating costs and any other costs. I do not have that information nor could I direct the court to tell the receiver-manager what to do about that.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, could the minister explain why, once again, the government has decided to treat the Cadillac Fairview tenants in Toronto differently from the tenants in the building on Southvale Crescent in Ottawa that is managed by Kilderkin? Why has the minister established a receivership and a clear place in Toronto where Cadillac Fairview tenants can pay their rent, but his advice to the tenants in Ottawa is that they should see a lawyer and work something out on their own as to whether to pay Kilderkin, whether to pay Mastercraft or whether not to pay at all?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I realize that knowledge of the law is not among the member's many attributes. It is my belief, from the information available to me --

Hon. Mr. Davis: What are the member's other attributes?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I have not found any others. I am just trying to be decent and sensible and develop a good working relationship in this House. Can that be achieved? Does the Premier think so?

Mr. T. P. Reid: Not the way the minister has been acting.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I do not want to talk about the way the member has been acting. That is exactly what he has been doing, acting. To get back to his knowledge of the law --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: What is the problem? Does the member not want the government to act in these matters? I assume he agrees with what we are doing.

It is my understanding that the mortgagee in the case in Ottawa has acted. He has exercised his option and has received a court order. If information appears as a result of the efforts of the registrar, who is now in possession of various trust companies, that indicates a direction the government should be taking with respect to any number of buildings, it will do so. Surely the member's fundamental knowledge of life is such that he knows a judge will not order certain things, as he has here, on an interim basis unless facts are presented to him that allow him to do so.

As soon as that information is available to us to justify that kind of action -- the member should not shake his silly little head -- as soon as that kind of information is available, we will act as we have said we will act.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Cassidy: Don't be ridiculous. There are two rules: one for the people in Cadillac and one for the people in Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I am having some difficulty understanding the timing of the minister's moves today. As I said, rent cheques of close to $5 million, or at least in that range, were payable February 1 and it is now February 3. Mr. Morrison has been there for some two and a half months now. The government seized the company about three weeks ago. Why has the minister chosen to move at this date as opposed to before those rent cheques were to be paid because of the--

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor. The other members have had their opportunity to ask supplementaries. It is the Leader of the Opposition's turn.

Mr. Peterson: I do not have to repeat that, do I?

Mr. Speaker: No. Thank you.

Mr. Peterson: I want to know why the minister chose this late date to move in this way. In addition to that, I would like to know if the expenses of the interim receiver are going to be met through rents; whether those rentals are sufficient to cover the first and second mortgages which are down on those buildings, as well as the third, as long as they are legally constituted; or is he going to have to draw in other funds to pay on those mortgages or is he not going to pay them? What is the status of those payments or could a second mortgagee move in underneath the government and take those buildings?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: First of all, I mean this and I suspect this member's understanding of the law will lead him to agreement with what I am about to say. As soon as the counsel representing the government collected sufficient information, and the necessary affidavit with what the government viewed as adequate information to justify the application was obtained, the motion before the court was commenced and the writ was issued yesterday.

Let me emphasize this: As to what the receiver- manager appointed by the court will do or will find, that will be up to him and he is acting on behalf of the court. If any information is provided to me through legitimate routes that are in keeping with the receiver-manager's appointment by the court, certainly I will convey it, but I have no commitment other than that.

STATUS OF UNION LOCAL

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour and it concerns the threat of a takeover of Local 1059 of the Laborers' International Union of North America by the Laborers' International headquarters in the United States. I know the minister is familiar with this situation as he met with members of the local yesterday; also, he received open letters from me as well as members of the New Democratic Party.

The minister is clearly aware of the situation and I will not go into all the details, but there is a threatened takeover, a trusteeship, that could happen any day -- it could happen now or at least in the very near future -- by the international union because of some allegations of an improper election and the international exercising its authority. Is the minister prepared to move immediately to prevent Local 1059 from being taken over, trusteed by the international union?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the takeover is imminent, or likely within a day or so; I believe there is a two-week period of time.

It is true that I met with officers of the local yesterday, who gave me a complete history of the circumstances. I believe those same officers have met with the Leader of the Opposition and also with the leader of the third party.

In a letter to me, the honourable member has urged the amendment of the Labour Relations Act either to require a parent international union to justify in advance the imposition of trusteeship or to afford the local access to the courts to challenge trusteeship after the fact.

I would like to remind the honourable member that the act in its present form is not silent on the matter of trusteeship.

Section 82 requires any provincial, national or international trade union that assumes supervision over one of its locals to file with the Ontario Labour Relations Board, within 60 days, a statement setting out the terms of supervision. Some 12 such statements have been filed with the board since 1979.

The section further requires that the consent of the board must be obtained in order for the state of supervision to continue beyond 12 months.

I might also add that the imposition of trusteeship has recently been the subject of complaint proceedings before the board in which it was argued, to some extent successfully, that the international union's actions constituted interference with certain rights under the act.

The honourable member's proposal is similar to the one that was made to me yesterday by officers of Local 1059, and it would represent a fundamental change in the treatment of trade unions under the laws of Ontario. At present, trade unions are essentially self-regulating organizations. They develop their own procedures and remedies in matters such as the imposition of trusteeship.

It is my impression that there may be strong opposition from many leaders in the trade union to the measures proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. The suggested changes would, I think, be regarded by many as unwarranted government intrusion into internal union matters. However, I would, of course, want to hear all sides of the argument in assessing the merit of this proposed amendment.

Mr. Peterson: To the minister, with great respect: While he is assessing all sides of the issue and hearing all these people in the reasonable way in which I know he wants to perform, there is a very distinct possibility that this local will be placed in trusteeship some time before February 15. That is the reality, and the issue is clearly the ability of the local to prevent an unwarranted, unilateral trusteeship by a foreign international, particularly one that has got the bad reputation internationally that this one has, particularly in those circumstances.

There may be power under the act and there may not. A number of experts believe there is not enough power under the act at the present time. Some will argue the iron workers' case that there is power, but in the event there is not power for the labour relations board to get involved in this question and prevent that trusteeship, would the minister consider introducing immediately with quick passage -- I am sure it can be arranged in this House -- an amendment to the Labour Relations Act so this matter can go before the board before there is a trusteeship?

In the longer term, obviously, we can discuss the great issues of union independence, local independence from the internationals. But in the short term, I am asking the minister on behalf of the some 1,300 people who represent Local 1059 in London, Ontario -- and let me tell him, there is wide support for this -- will he help them out on a short-term basis, even with a specific amendment geared to this particular case?

I and those who are sitting in the gallery are asking the minister for his support. In their judgement he is the last line of defence at this time. Will he please help?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: With respect, I do not believe I am the last line of defence for them. I believe they have rights at common law that could be asserted in the courts. I have been advised of such, and perhaps as a solicitor, the Leader of the Opposition is aware of the avenues that are available to them.

I do not want to stand up here today and make any commitments that I will not be able to fulfil. I am very sympathetic to the plight of these individuals; I say this sincerely. I want to look at it with the advice of the senior people in my ministry. They have been studying it right up until the time I left for question period today. They are looking at all aspects of it, and I hope I will be able to make some sort of statement in this House early next week.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the minister knows this matter has been on his desk for some time, because I know he or at least officials of his ministry -- the deputy minister, I believe, and the head of the labour board -- had a meeting some time in June to discuss this problem specifically.

I would like to put to the minister the fact that the difference between this situation and the number of trusteeships that have begun to occur in the building trades now and the previous history of trusteeships in the province is that there is growing evidence the trusteeships being invoked by internationals are political in nature. They have to do with the decision of some locals to maintain their affiliation with the Ontario Federation of Labour and the Canadian Labour Congress rather than to go along with the decision by several of the smaller international building trades to form their own independent group. It has nothing to do with money, nothing to do with absconding with funds, nothing to do with those areas that are normally handled by trusteeships.

Given the length of time the minister's department has had to consider this problem, and given the fact that it does affect the very fundamental political and democratic right of trade unionists living in Ontario, living in Canada, to handle their own union affairs in their own way subject to the laws of this province, will the minister please consider the urgency of the situation and look to increasing the jurisdiction of the labour board with respect to what is happening at the present time, so we can deal with this problem, here in Canada, here in Ontario, and guarantee the democratic rights of trade union members?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, of course the answer to that is yes, because I have already said I will look into it and our people are looking into it very seriously at this very moment.

I am encouraged by the fact the third party would support this particular type of amendment because I did have some doubts in that respect until I received the letter this morning from the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie). That support is welcome and I would hope to get back to the member shortly.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, what is really most shocking about this whole affair, as my friend the leader of the third party has suggested, is that the minister's ministry has known about this situation for months. It was in the summer that his deputy minister, Mr. Armstrong, met with Mr. Pilkey and with a delegation from the Laborers' International. At that time, he was even given a copy of a proposed amendment.

I am going to send the minister a copy of an amendment we are going to propose today. I would like him to have a look at it.

For months, up until this time, which is the critical 11th hour and it really may be 11:59 for this local, he has done nothing.

When is this ministry going to act to protect Ontario workers from this kind of arbitrary, unfair and unilateral action from international leaders who simply wink and scoff at the right of a local to ensure all of its officers are honestly elected?

Will the minister look at that amendment and bring forward either that amendment, under his name, or a similar amendment at the earliest possible opportunity?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to look at the amendment. I understand the member for Hamilton East has also indicated he would like to submit a suggested amendment as well and I will be happy to look at that.

As I said, my senior people are meeting at this very moment and have been meeting most of the morning in this respect. We are acting on this matter and I will have further information for members within the next few days.

STATUS OF RENTAL BUILDINGS

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my first question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. It concerns the question of Kilderkin Investments and the response of the ministry to take these various individuals to court and to seek the appointment of an interim manager.

I am sure the minister will appreciate that for all the action which he has taken, I think the action taken yesterday will cause some concern to the tenants, with respect to the government's plan for the future, if the court action is successful.

Can the minister give us some indication, some idea, as to what plans, contingency or otherwise, the government has, if the actions it takes are successful or if the actions it takes are unsuccessful? I am sure the minister will agree that despite the appointment of the interim receiver, there is still a great deal of concern out there about the long-term security for these tenants.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I think there is not anyone in the room who would not like to look into the future and know exactly what was going to happen in every aspect of this situation in its broadest sense. Certainly I would, but like the member, I will have to wait as each day unfolds, confident in the knowledge that this Legislature moved in December to assure tenants that no matter what was happening with respect to flips of property, they would be immune from any impact of that episode, should it occur and should it affect them.

With that in mind, the government will proceed and report on information that can be reported, from time to time, with the comfort the member must have, that the tenants can know that they have been protected to that extent, to that extreme extent, from any impact as a result of flip transactions such as the one we were looking at today.

Mr. Rae: The concern is a little different and really has nothing to do with the question of those flips. It has to do with a sense of security about who is managing, and the professionalism of the management for maintenance, repairs and so on. This is why we urged the government some time ago to take the kind of action they have taken today.

I would ask the minister this: On January 18, when I asked the minister a question specifically dealing with Kilderkin Investments and the government's plans with respect to the buildings, he referred to the "Kilderkin empire." I would simply like to refer the minister to the fact that it is clear that the Kilderkin empire is collapsing. It is collapsing across the province. We have evidence from Ottawa, and we have dramatic evidence as to what has taken place here in Toronto.

I would really like to get the minister to answer more specifically. What does he plan to do with those units in those buildings currently under the management of the Kilderkin empire when that empire appears to be collapsing? What kind of assurance can he give to all the other tenants in Ontario whose buildings are currently being managed by Kilderkin? Is he simply going to leave them out in the cold or to their own private remedies? Does he not see the need for some public remedy coming from his government to them as well?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I understand the point of the member's question very well: The government should step in and buy all the apartment buildings in the province. But the government does not intend to do that. The government intends to move, step by step as evidence unfolds, in appropriate ways.

There are remedies available to those who hold mortgages on these properties, one of which has been exercised by a mortgagee in Ottawa. That is not the route we have taken. The route we have taken in this particular case is the move to have the mortgages rescinded. Surely the member cannot ask the government to say what it is going to do if they are not rescinded or if they are rescinded. We are looking at the evidence to be presented and the findings of the court, and in the meantime, a court-appointed interim receiver-manager will be looking after and managing the properties in the best interests of all.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I am going to make what I consider a very reasonable request of the minister. Would he, through his ministry, investigate the status of Kilderkin and Maysfield as it pertains to the buildings that were not subject to the great Cadillac Fairview sale? I understand there is a receiver there. Would the minister inquire into their financial viability? Would he ascertain whether they have the financial capability as well as the management capability to run those buildings, particularly since their property management arm, Maysfield, has been trusteed, or is in the hands of an interim receiver?

Interjection.

Mr. Peterson: I understand that is in the hands of an interim receiver, is it not?

Interjection.

Mr. Peterson: That is what I am saying. What I want to ask is that the minister investigate that situation, report back to this House as soon as possible, give us his impression as to the rights and obligations of those tenants, and assure us that they are in good hands, that they will still be managed and that the tenants can exercise their rights in the ordinary course of events. Surely it is not unreasonable to request that the minister share that information with those 20,000 or 30,000 people who live in the up-to-10,000 units in the buildings I am talking about.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, again, I realize we all have different audiences we are trying to play to, but let us clearly understand the kind of protection this Legislature, on the initiative of this government, has given to tenants. It has imposed a cap while a royal commission reviews the whole issue of rent review. The Residential Tenancy Commission has imposed certain guidelines which to my mind offer a great deal of protection to tenants.

In the meantime, in spite of the member's usual dribs-and-drabs approach of "Look at this and look at that," we are looking at the whole thing. The registrar is in possession of the trust companies involved in the transactions; these transactions and other transactions. The Morrison inquiry is looking at the whole arrangement of things. In general, it is investigating the business practices of these companies, and it has had persons from Kilderkin before it to give evidence.

It is true that today, the parties have been before the courts to try to stop them from pursuing it, but they will continue, within the limits imposed on them by the courts, to search out information. When that information is available to be reported to this House, I will report it.

Mr. Rae: The statement of claim attached to the writ, which the minister has very kindly given to the leader of the Liberal Party and myself, states --

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is for night-time reading.

Mr. Rae: Very late at night. Schedule A states, "The said mortgages were procured by" -- I am quoting from the statement -- "conspiracy, misrepresentation, breaches of the provisions of the Loan and Trust Corporations Act and as a result of breaches of fiduciary obligations owed to the plaintiff."

Can the minister tell us the status of any criminal investigations that are under way and any criminal charges that might flow out of this statement contained in the statement of claim? What is the status of any action the registrar and the government of Ontario might take against these companies as a result of alleged breaches of the Loan and Trust Corporations Act? This is a civil suit. What other action is the government contemplating if it is of the view that conspiracy, misrepresentation and breaches of the act have taken place?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: That is an interesting question to answer, once again. This minister makes no determinations on behalf of the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor), the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) or the federal government -- through its agent, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police -- as to what charges will be laid, if there is evidence on a criminal basis to lay those charges, nor do I direct the Ontario Securities Commission with respect to any steps it may take.

If the member wishes to ask the appropriate minister for that information, he may do so, knowing full well he cannot answer his questions. That is why he is asking me. I understand those things, if I answered, he would criticize me for answering. Understanding the nature of the game we are both playing, and understanding he will criticize me if I do and criticize me if I do not, suppose I just say nothing and carry on from there. Is that clear enough?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: As I said last week, counsel are clearly reviewing the Loan and Trust Corporations Act to see whether there are any steps or measures that should be taken as a result of evidence that may indicate any contravention of that legislation. When that information is before me, I will advise the House.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, the member for York South.

Mr. Rae: This is my second question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Sorry, new question.

Mr. Rae: I know it is hard to follow when the minister gives those kinds of answers.

HOUSING PROGRAMS

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I know it is lonely at the top, and I would like to ask perhaps the loneliest, the Premier (Mr. Davis), a question with respect to the government's economic performance, specifically as to what is happening in the field of housing. I know this is the second anniversary of the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program and the members opposite --

Interjections.

Mr. Rae: The members opposite should be ashamed of themselves. They are suffering from what I call premature self-congratulations.

In regard to what has not been done and the need to build something very basic in this province, that is, houses and homes for its people, I refer the Premier to the very simple fact that there are plans ready to go, ready to be funded, ready to be started, ready to get off the drawing board, for over 2,000 units of social housing in Toronto alone from both the co-op field and the city nonprofit housing field.

Given the size of the need, when there are 18,000 families on the Ontario Housing Corp. waiting list and thousands of people in the construction field out of work, 40 per cent of them in Metropolitan Toronto, when will the Premier act to start providing social housing for people not only in this city but in this province and respond immediately to the real short-term, medium-term and long-term employment needs, housing needs and shelter needs of the people of this province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I heard as a preamble to the question some reference to BILD, which I know the leader of the New Democratic Party wanted to put in that question to give me an opportunity to take just a few moments in question period in a very legitimate way to --

Mr. Martel: That was not the question.

Hon. Mr. Walker: He raised the question of BILD.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, I say to the member for Sudbury East I heard a specific reference to BILD.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I thought the leader was eliciting some comment on it.

I would be delighted to respond to that observation because I would say to the leader of the New Democratic Party, and I know this view is shared by the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), who has been with us on two or three of these occasions recently, that the BILD program is one of the most creative initiatives in the history of this province as it relates to many aspects of economic development. There is no question about it.

I was very impressed in Ottawa and Cambridge. Unfortunately, I was not able to get to Chatham. There is Peterborough next week. I sense the response from the local community is quite enthusiastic. I think "unabashedly excited" was the phrase used yesterday.

However, dealing with housing, I would say to the leader of the New Democratic Party this government has always looked upon housing as --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not want to trespass --

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say to the leader of the New Democratic Party that housing has been a major priority of this government for years. I have a lot of figures here. I am not going to burden the member because we got into this slight exchange during the latter part of last week or perhaps it was on Monday -- I know it was recently when I made some general observations. I have not heard from the leader of the New Democratic Party in a way that would contradict those observations.

That does not mean there is not more to be done. I would never say we have achieved the ultimate by any stretch of the imagination. But the leader of the New Democratic Party is not giving sufficient credit to this government. I know that is not his job, but I tell him that the 15,000 units which were sold directly because of this government had a significant impact on the construction industry, the furniture industry and the white goods industry as well.

He really should ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett), who is not only eager and anxious but enthusiastic in replying to a question of this nature. I think housing starts are numerically in excess of last year. That figure may be slightly in error, but I think I am relatively close.

The leader of the New Democratic Party has referred to units here in Metropolitan Toronto. The minister of housing made it abundantly clear that some of these programs do require the co-operation and involvement of the government of Canada.

I want to make it clear that we regard housing as a priority. We believe we have moved and done it with sensitivity. I would again make the general observation that in terms of accommodation there is no jurisdiction I am aware of which has done more with respect to accommodation for its people than here in Ontario.

Mr. Rae: The Premier's record with regard to what is happening in social housing and what is happening to people who are in need in this province just does not add up. It does not add up to what he says, it does not add up to his record and it does not add up to all the great things he wants to say about all the other programs which may or may not have worked. The fact remains that when it comes to low-income housing, the government of Ontario has a warehousing policy and not a housing policy. That is the hard fact.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: Let the Premier go down to the hostels and have a look at the people waiting to find permanent accommodation who are sleeping on the floor. They will tell him what it is like.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary question, please.

Mr. Rae: Specifically, I want to ask the Premier how he can explain the fact that the community housing activity budget of the government shows an actual cut of $1.6 million from the 1982-83 estimates to the revised estimates. How can the Premier explain that kind of cut at a time when the need is growing and the need is so great?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing could give the member a definitive answer that would be not only acceptable but also understood. I do not want to prolong this discussion, but we met not too many days ago with some of the people from the social agencies in Toronto. I am a little intrigued by the references the member made to people who were in hostels and so on. We are concerned about that. The Ministry of Community and Social Services has been working with some of the church and other agencies.

What I am really wondering out loud is whether he is referring to transients, shall we say, people who are not looking for permanent accommodation; or whether he is looking at the concern he has, as we have, for people who are coming into Metropolitan Toronto and cannot find job opportunities, who do not necessarily want either assisted or nonassisted housing, and for whom, through some of the agencies, we are endeavouring to provide accommodation. He referred to people in hostels and so on, and I assume that is what he meant.

3 p.m.

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, the Premier knows full well he is finally responsible for any cuts being made and the buck really stops at his desk.

The Premier has made a commitment to the city of Toronto to produce subsidized public housing. I asked this question on Monday and he has not replied to it. Now the Metro Toronto Housing Authority is ready to produce more than 2,000 units. We want to know whether the Premier and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing will keep the promise they made to the city of Toronto in 1981.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member is very aware of the formula that is used here in Metropolitan Toronto. He was there when these matters were arranged not very many years ago. We can get him the information if he would like, but he has as much access to it as we do. This does involve an allocation from the government of Canada -- he knows that and I know that -- and I gather from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing that it has not been received.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, the people my leader is talking about are the people -- more than 50 per cent, in many cases -- in our hostels at the moment who the hostel-keepers say should be in long-term affordable housing and not in hostels. They have been there for five or six months, maybe even longer. There are 18,000 families -- that is more than 40,000 people -- on waiting lists. They are the people who come to our constituency offices every day, who are doubled and tripled up with other families waiting for months and months to get into Ontario Housing or some kind of subsidized housing.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: What is the government doing right now for those people's individual problems to get them into some kind of basic housing that is appropriate just to basic human needs?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, memories are short, and I understand the climate in which we live. But for the honourable member to suggest this province has not taken any initiatives, has not done anything that affects this particular group of people, is just totally incorrect. It is just not so.

The member can argue about whether we have done enough; that is a valid area of debate on just about any government program. The member can say we should do more. I accept that. Our problem is in the determination of our priorities, because the member would also argue with me that we should be spending more on the health service.

I met with the folks on Bill 127 yesterday. Sure, we discussed some aspects of Bill 127, but the parents were really saying, "You should be spending much more on education in a total sense." It was not just related to Bill 127.

There is no question the member can say that to us, except we have the responsibility to raise the taxes. He never takes any credit or responsibility for that when we do it. We have the responsibility as a government to allocate the resources we have.

He can question our judgement as to whether we are taxing too much or too little, and usually I hear that we are taxing too much in some areas or too little in other areas as it suits his philosophical, ideological or theological bent. I understand that.

But I say to him, please do not say to me this government has not been sensitive to and has not done as much as or more than any other jurisdiction in North America with respect to rent-geared-to-income or subsidized housing. I do not say it is always adequate; I am not prepared to make that statement. But he should not say to me that we have not done anything.

The member should sit down and sort out the priorities. He should remember what he has said in terms of social services, what he has said in terms of health services and what his party has consistently said about education and how we should be spending more on that; and then he says to us what our priorities should be.

We know the problem; we are sensitive to it. But as a government we have to look at all the demands or requests upon us and sort them out according to the priorities that we assess are proper.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, I know how the member for York South would solve the problem: he would tax everybody to death; he would stifle the economy of this province; he would intervene and assume responsibility for the total resource sector; and not only would we not have any housing then but also we would not have any money to do it. I know the honourable members simplistic approach.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Rainy River with a new question.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, they might even buy an oil company if they were in government.

Hon. Mr. Davis: All 51 per cent.

Mr. Martel: That's right. We would have control. With 49 per cent you have nothing.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Question, please.

BILD PROGRAM

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the minister who is in charge of recycling the 'bilge" program. In fact, it is related to something to do with the oil company.

The Treasurer was chairing that great meeting this morning, having elbowed Larry "The Lip" Grossman out of the way for the chairmanship of the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program. He heard his colleague the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) reading, with the enthusiasm of somebody watching paint dry, a statement in regard to the great things he was doing in the energy field.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member is stealing other people's lines.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I was going to say like a defrocked minister praying over an unknown pauper's grave, but I decided not to say that. But enthusiasm was lacking, shall we say.

My question of the Treasurer is this: How does he, under the so-called "bilge" program -- BILD program; sorry, some habits are hard to break -- justify a maximum of $20 million over five years in the renewable energy sector? His government, presumably with the minister's acquiescence, has spent $650 million on Suncor, a nonrenewable resource which the minister inadvertently referred to when he said, "Look at what we are doing for renewable resource." How does he justify that?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, this morning when the Minister of Energy was talking about the various programs, he made special reference to hydrogen, I believe --

Mr. T. P. Reid: -- and the government is spending $8 million over five years.

Hon. F. S. Miller: He pointed out how the hydrogen research going on at the University of Toronto was, let us say, marrying two unmatched supplies in Canada: the carbon of the west and the energy potential of the east in terms of electricity, which in turn becomes hydrogen. He was pointing out how that was an advantage to us all by making our resources mutually complementary.

Mr. Kerrio: Hvdro is bungling. Put four parts in and take one out; that will get rid of surplus hydro.

Hon. F. S. Miller: What I have to get rid of is the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio).

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, does the member remember Stuart Smith's big speech on hydrogen during the campaign last time?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

An hon. member: We only remember the promises the government made.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes; and I am very glad to say the people of the province not only remember them but also thank us for them, as they did yesterday when they turned out in Cambridge by the thousands -- and they will keep on doing that.

BILD is a well-balanced allocation of moneys across a very wide range of needs. The idea that one simply pulls out a figure and says, "How does that compare with this one?" is not very realistic. My friend knows that.

Mr. T. P. Reid: It is interesting that the more stinging our criticism, the bigger public relations effort the government puts on and the less substance we see.

How does the minister justify that in 1979, when unemployment was about seven per cent, the predecessor of "bilge," the employment development fund, was spending more money in real dollars than BILD is today, when the unemployment rate is 12 per cent? He is spending, depending on which figures the minister trots out, from 8.6 to 14.2 per cent less in real dollars now than he was under EDF in 1979.

Hon. F. S. Miller: My friend should really go to the Ontario Centre for Computer-Aided Design and Computer-Aided Manufacturing. It would remove that apparent aberration in his brain that connects the wrong letter with the name of the program.

I was watching them yesterday. They can call up almost any tiny piece of information from their files -- in the member's case it would be tiny -- and then correct it by putting the wires in the right way. Obviously, the member has this short circuit that slips a "g" in all the time.

Mr. T. P. Reid: And it keeps coming up "bilge." Even the Treasurer's word processors say "bilge." They are more accurate than he is.

Hon. F. S. Miller: My friend will also recall how he, and particularly his leader, criticized me in those years for putting money into the pulp and paper industry, where that money was going at a time when it appeared to be in great health. The comments I got at that time were along the lines of, "Why are you wasting money on the pulp and paper industry when they are making profits?" And we said, "There might be a bad year ahead in two or three years; better they should be able to survive it." That was why there was quite a bit of money there then.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that if there is any doubt that BILD is a political program and not an economic program, all one has to do is report that $25,000 was spent this morning on the public relations effort on the part of the government to promote its so-called BILD program. A program full of bunk is really what it is.

I want to ask the Treasurer why it was that this morning, when questions were asked of his ministers, they all went red-faced when they were asked how many jobs were created, and the vast majority of jobs that were reported, or about 95 per cent, were the short-term jobs that were announced under the federal-provincial job creation program which is a response to the depression that exists in the economy.

When is the Treasurer going to quit playing PR games with our economy and get serious about long-term restructuring of the economy?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, although I did not notice the red colour on the faces of my colleagues, I certainly noticed the green colour on the face of the honourable member opposite. It was the colour of real envy when he saw the interest in BILD and the attention it is getting around this province in cities such as Cambridge and Chatham and this morning at the display. The member knows there were lots of media there, and he knows it was drawing attention. He did not like to see it get the attention it deserves to get.

No matter how often we try to explain that what we are trying to do in BILD is exactly what he just said -- i.e., to have a medium- to long-term strategy, which obviously does not produce jobs in the early phases -- he returns to the same question, trying to say there is a need for immediate jobs but also that he wants medium- to long-term jobs. He is just not consistent.

Mr. Speaker: New question; the member for Sudbury East.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition with a point or privilege.

Mr. Martel: A point of privilege? Let him do it on his own time, at the end of question period.

An hon. member: Sit down, Elie.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point that I believe affects the privileges of members.

An hon. member: He gets up every day.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It's a good tactic, David.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

TRANSFER OF CROWN TRUST ASSETS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: It is my understanding that a press conference was arranged in the media studio today under the name of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie). At three o'clock, a Mr. Michael Jaycock of the R. T. Kelley Inc. public relations firm, I understand hired by the client apparently purchasing Crown Trust, was going to use that opportunity to make public the details of that sale.

Mr. Speaker: With all respect, that is not a point of privilege.

Mr. Peterson: Yes, it is. We have had --

Mr. Speaker: No. It is another question.

Mr. Peterson: We have had some very serious discussions under points of privilege about the question of ministers making announcements outside of this House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I dealt with that on Tuesday. I made a ruling, which was accepted. It is really beyond my jurisdiction.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. I wonder whether the minister is aware that on January 29 at 1:30 a.m. in the Inco nickel refinery the sensors indicated there was a leakage of CO₂ and nickel carbonyl, and 13 workers had to be evacuated. They were returned to work when the leak could not be found. The Ministry of Labour was not called in.

Is the minister further aware that at 2:30 a.m., on the same day the instruments went crazy a second time and the workers were taken out of that place and had to have oxygen? Then there was a urine analysis done on all 13 workers, and nine were found to have nickel content over the permissible level.

Can the minister explain why, when his staff was called at 5:30 a.m. that day, it did not respond and in fact it did not come out to investigate this situation until four more calls were made by Dan Sweezey on Monday, some 48 hours after the incident occurred?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the incident the honourable member has described. I am not aware that there was a problem as far as the inspector was concerned, and I will be pleased to follow up on that.

Mr. Martel: A year ago, the minister's predecessor had to send in staff to investigate this because Inco had removed one of the workers in the backup team. Two weeks ago, Inco removed the instrument man in the same area. Had he been there, this incident might not have occurred.

In view of those facts, is the minister prepared to look into whether there is a real hazard, as apparently there was last year? Since nickel carbonyl is extremely dangerous, will he review why the company sent those workers back in? Can he find out, in conjunction with his colleague the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton), why Inco did not report this incident to the Ministry of the Environment because of the dangers of this material?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: The answer to all those questions is yes, I will.

TRANSFER OF CROWN TRUST ASSETS

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. In view of the report this morning in the Toronto Sun that Crown Trust may have reached an agreement in principle for the acquisition of Crown Trust by Central Trust of Halifax, I wonder whether the minister will comment on the truth or otherwise of such a report and, indeed, on the current ownership situation of Crown Trust.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say there has been agreement in principle to allow the registrar to proceed with negotiations with a particular purchaser, namely, Central Trust, to determine whether an agreement that is satisfactory to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. and ourselves can be reached.

Mr. Conway: What a way to have that done.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I did not intend it this way. I had hoped that final agreement would be available for me to report to the House. I still hope some minor problems will be resolved and I will be able to report to the House.

The press conference that had been scheduled has been postponed. I did not intend to be there personally. It was to be a press conference held by the chairman of the board if agreement had been reached by that time. If it causes any inconvenience to anyone, I am sincerely sorry. We are pursuing it with all possible vigour to resolve it as quickly as possible.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, is the minister telling this House that Central Trust will be the purchaser of at least some of those assets but that there is some trouble with the negotiations? Is he expecting a resolution of that today?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I am not trying to be evasive. I am simply saying there are two or three matters that have to be cleared up, not necessarily with Central Trust.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Just take it easy and settle down.

It is my belief they can be resolved, and it is my hope they can be resolved today. If they are, I will be pleased, with the consent of the House, to make an announcement in this Legislature as the first formal place it is announced.

BABCOCK AND WILCOX

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Premier (Mr. Davis) but, because of the urgency of my question and the current interest in it, I want to put it to the Treasurer.

The Wall Street Journal this past week revealed that General Public Utilities at Three Mile Island is suing Babcock and Wilcox for $4 billion for a malfunction in its boilers. Babcock and Wilcox has an incredible, scandalous record. Its last installation cost the taxpayers of Ontario an extra $850 million. It had posted a $62-million performance bond, but Hydro has neglected to go after it for recovery of the $850 million. We have now spent hundreds of millions of dollars for Darlington with no bid and Babcock and Wilcox got the deal again, with Foster Wheeler being able to do a perfect job.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Sargent: In view of the fact that we have these millions and billions of dollars lying out there -- our money, if we want to get it; the minister says, as Treasurer of Ontario, he can advise Hydro he wants that money brought in to the taxpayers of Ontario. because it is lying there for us to go after it -- why has Hydro not taken some steps to show it is not on the take? Someone is on the take in granting these no-bid contracts to Babcock and Wilcox. What can the Treasurer do about this?

3:20 p.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I believe that question has been asked of my colleague the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) before, and he has answered it. I think it is best left with him. I do not believe my colleague really intended to use the words "on the take." I would hope he would not imply that of either Hydro or this government.

Mr. Sargent: Is the minister aware that the engineers in Hydro cannot figure out what the hell is going on, because of the minister's favouritism to Babcock and Wilcox? As a member of cabinet, he made the appointment of Mr. Macaulay as a bagman for the party. Each month we receive these lists of hundreds of million of dollars of contracts going through from Hydro. Is there any reason to believe Mr. Macaulay will not put the arm on these people as the government's new bagman? In view of the fact that the engineers in Hydro feel there is some hanky-panky going on --

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, please.

Mr. Sargent: I do not take back the words "on the take." Someone is on the take, and there should be a full inquiry into what is going on. Will the Treasurer please answer that?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am in no position to answer it. I just want to say one thing on behalf of the person whose character the member is referring to. I understand Mr. Macaulay is leaving Hydro very shortly, and I can only say this --

Mr. Sargent: He is the minister's bagman.

Hon. F. S. Miller: That man no more needed the job than fly. He is well off himself. He happens to have the rare combination of intelligence, honesty, capability --

Mr. Sargent: Answer the question.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: No. This is absolutely honest. I have the greatest respect for the gentleman. We need people of his calibre very badly who are willing to take appointments in this world on behalf of government to represent us, no matter what their political stripe. I am delighted we have had the opportunity to have him on our side for the past three and a half to four years.

TRANSFER OF CROWN TRUST ASSETS

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I can only put this as a point of order for the clarification of the record.

For the past number of days I have eagerly participated in what was to me a very interesting parliamentary process, the matter of Bill 215, respecting the sale of the Crown Trust Co. I read in one of this morning's papers a leaked report, something that now looks as if it was quite accurate. I must say --

Mr. Speaker: Order. With all respect, that is not a point of order.

Mr. Conway: I know what I heard the minister say moments ago in relation to the question of --

Mr. Speaker: Will the honourable member please resume his seat?

Mr. Conway: But this is an outrageous revelation of --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member please resume his seat?

THOM COMMISSION

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order also relating to the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

The minister will no doubt recall that late last fall he announced a commission was going to be charged with the responsibility of examining the present regulations governing the Residential Tenancy Commission all over Ontario. The mandate of the commission -- and I quote -- was to "give careful attention not only to possible changes in existing procedures in standards of rent review that would make it more acceptable to both landlords and tenants, but to other steps that might be taken to cope with the problems of residential tenancy as well."

In view of the wide-ranging scope of the hearings of the Thom commission, my point of order is with respect to a decision to hold hearings in only five communities across Ontario and not even to advertise the existence of those hearings in such major centres as the community of Hamilton. I personally contacted the commission administrator today and was told that most Hamilton residents should be reading the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Sun and --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable member well knows that is not a legitimate point of order.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

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

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

Bill Pr50, An Act respecting the Certified General Accountants Association of Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTING

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that, notwithstanding any previous orders, the House sit in the chamber on Wednesday, February 9, 1983.

Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that, notwithstanding standing order 64, government business be called on Thursday afternoon, February 10, 1983.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Peterson moved, seconded by Mr. Wrye, first reading of Bill 218, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, this bill would require a provincial, national or international trade union to obtain the consent of the Ontario Labour Relations Board before assuming supervision or control of a subordinate trade union.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House that the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to a certain bill in his chambers on Tuesday last.

Assistant Clerk: The following is the title of the bill to which His Honour has assented:

Bill 215, An Act respecting Crown Trust Company.

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 592, 652, 653, 654, 655, 656 and 688, and the interim answers to questions 684, 685, 687, 691, 692, 693, 694, 695, 696, 697, 698, 699, 700 and 701, all standing on the Notice Paper [see Hansard for Friday, February 4].

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: I might indicate also, Mr. Speaker, that there has been a slight change in the business for today as printed on the order sheet. We are going to begin with third reading of Bill 203 and then resume the adjourned debate on concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. Then we will move to second reading and committee of the whole House, if necessary, on Bill 197, followed by concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Energy.

After that, we will do concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture, followed by concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation and then move to the adjourned debate of concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Education, all of this going on until six o'clock and then this evening.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading on motion:

Bill 203, An Act to amend the Fuel Tax Act.

3:30 p.m.

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS (CONCLUDED)

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I adjourned the debate the other night. I would like to bring to the attention of the minister something I am sure he is aware of, which was discussed in the estimates. It is in regard to assistance for Canada Coach Lines Ltd., which has serviced the region of Haldimand-Norfolk for many years. They have provided a good service on a regular basis to Dunnville, Port Dover, Simcoe and Tillsonburg. They have been reliable, but now have suddenly come up with financial problems.

Getting to the history of the Canada Coach service, it has been provided by Hamilton, now Hamilton-Wentworth. They have made a request for assistance of $100,000 to keep the service viable and available to the area. Only this past week I used the GO Transit service from Toronto to Hamilton. In order to get to any point in that part of Ontario, the region of Haldimand-Norfolk, the Canada Coach service is the only one available. I would consider it an extension of the GO system.

I recognize that the minister has indicated they have not subsidized interurban bus services, but I feel this is an extension of the GO system, which he has expanded and for which the province is picking up a considerable amount of funding. I suspect it would certainly amount to more than is being requested on a per-passenger basis by the region of Hamilton-Wentworth.

I believe they carried about 145,000 passengers and are asking for a grant of $100,000. That works out to almost 69 cents per passenger. I feel it is only fair that this service is continued. While we have tremendous potential for development in the area -- with the new town of Townsend and the Nanticoke industrial park, with Stelco, Texaco and Hydro being located there -- the fact is there is no other service for the working people particularly in these difficult financial times when many of them cannot afford a vehicle. If one is unemployed, the cost of operating a motor vehicle is much more expensive.

in the tobacco area, where the cash crops, fruit and other crops are grown, both in Haldimand and Norfolk around Dunnville, Simcoe and Port Rowan, how else can these labouring people get into those areas if there is not a bus service provided? They cannot afford taxis. I am asking if the minister would give consideration to at least meeting with the regions of Haldimand-Norfolk and Hamilton-Wentworth to discuss this problem to see if the service can be maintained.

In summing up, there has been some interest by private enterprise people in providing the service. An example which has been tried before between Simcoe and Brantford on a private basis lasted only a few months. They could not continue to operate because of the lack of adequate financing to keep them going.

This is a service that has been provided in the area for some 40 years, at least as long as I can remember. It has been an extremely good service. I hope it will continue.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a couple of comments concerning the extension of GO Transit rail service to the east and west. I want to put my oar in. I am aware the government has finally made an announcement many of us have looked forward to for some time. We are now into the technical aspects of design and of choosing some options as to where the track will go.

I know the ministry in the past has, with a little prodding, been prepared to hold public hearings so that people who would be affected by the construction of the project or who would be users of the transit system per se would have an opportunity to express their opinions about the various options and technical decisions which would be made. I am aware the ministry staff is consulting with regional people and, I understand, with municipal people throughout the region of Durham. I anticipate the same thing would be happening the other way.

I want to put in a plea that the decision-making process be open to the public at large, because some difficult decisions have to be made. For example, we went through an exercise when Highway 401 was widened, which began with ministry staff simply holding information forums. That was expanded somewhat so residents were able to participate, at least to the degree of giving their opinions on things which might directly impact on their neighbourhoods and houses, and on the kind of transit system which would be provided on the basis of the widening of the 401.

I would ask the minister to take into consideration that some useful information did evolve because of that process. The ministry was not able to resolve everybody's problem. The ministry did not make everybody happy either. But people felt that if a major project was going on in their backyards, so to speak -- and for many it literally was their backyard or their front yard -- they at least had a chance to meet face to face with the ministry and to work out some of the problems.

In my view, the protect in its entirety was improved somewhat because there were opportunities for the public to talk to ministry staff and to point out some options which perhaps had been thought about previously but had not been given a full-tilt examination.

I make the plea to the minister that in the process of completing all the technical and engineering decisions which have to be made on the extension of GO Transit rail into the Durham region, the process be done at a staff level, which I think is important, that it be done at a political level, which is also important, but that there also be provision for a series of public hearings to hear from people who will either be users of the system or will be directly affected by the construction of the project.

I am not anticipating, as many are, a quick end to this project. It has always been my experience this government likes to announce these things 10 or 12 times. Then it gets serious about them, goes through the process and has a series of announcements as it goes through.

Interjection.

Mr. Breaugh: As one of my colleagues just pointed out, oddly enough these things always seem to get heated up just prior to a provincial election. I do not know why that is. It is just a matter of timing, I suppose.

But whatever construction schedule anybody might have in mind, there is time yet for the provision of a series of public hearings which would allow those people who will be directly affected by it to participate in the process. I encourage the ministry staff to do that. Some rather awkward decisions have to be made. We would all be better served if the ministry would open the process up a little.

I have not seen any announcements by either the minister or his staff that they had anticipated doing that, but I would make a plea that they do such a thing. It would be most useful. In the end, we would come up with a transit system that is good from a planner's point of view, good from an engineer's point of view and, most important, good from the point of view of the people who are going to pay for the system, the people who ride the system and the other taxpayers of Ontario.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I want to address myself to the concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. Of course, my main concern is the new provincial and federal government program, NEED, the new employment expansion and development program involved in the municipalities.

I am concerned about the unemployment situation in the Niagara Peninsula, which perhaps ranks as one of the highest across Canada. I was hoping the minister could advance some of his long-range capital works projects to this year and next year. That would put additional stimulus into the work force in the region and give assistance to some of the contractors.

3:40 p.m.

I think particularly of the extension of Highway 406 and I know the ministry has expended quite a bit of money in that area. What is going to take place on Highway 406 once the cloverleaf is put in at Martindale, in that area west of St. Catharines?

What does the minister have in mind this year or next year for continuing with Highway 406 south to Highway 58 at the town line tunnel between Welland and Port Colborne? I am thinking of the proposal of putting a new bridge across the old Welland Canal. I guess it would be called Woodlawn crossing. That has been in the works of the minister for quite a number of years now and perhaps this is the time he should be pushing that project and moving it forward so that we can create some construction work in that area.

The other area I am concerned about is Highway 20. I am sure my colleague the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes) is also concerned and I suppose he has received some complaints from motorists who travel Highway 20. I notice the minister in the past year and a half has completed some major road improvements in the area from Elfrida east to Smithville, but there is a problem from Smithville east to the town of Fonthill. That road is in such poor condition one can hardly keep a vehicle on it. It is a very rough road for a provincial highway. The minister should consider advancing some work projects in this area.

I am also concerned about the Queen Elizabeth Way, travelling it as many times as I do, and the roadside condition of other provincial highways. Some places are almost a disgrace in the area of weed control. I suggest perhaps in the new employment expansion and development program there is an area where the minister can put some youngsters to work with the old hand scythes and cut down some of those Scots thistles and other heavy noxious weeds. On a number of the overpasses on the QEW there is a serious weed problem.

Last year, ministry employees went out and cut once with the mower just along the side of the road, but there are other areas from Fort Erie to Niagara Falls where there is a pretty poor stretch and all the ditches are growing up with bulrushes. It is going to be an expensive job down the road if the minister has to send in a Gradall to clean out the ditches to get the water off the highway.

I suggest there is a program that can create a number of man-hours this summer, hiring students to go out, even with the old scythes, to cut down some of the thistles and weeds.

I am also concerned about another area which perhaps the minister should be looking at to create jobs in the Niagara region and that is completing the third bridge crossing in Port Colborne. We have the first stage, across lot No. 8 in Port Colborne. This always brings a little bit of a smile to the minister, but he has to complete the connecting link. It is partly done now. The next one would be across part of the old weir to Killaly Street, which is the major connecting link in the downtown core. I do not think it would be too costly a project and it is something the minister is going to have to take a look at to complete the connecting loops in the city.

I can recall a few years ago meeting with the minister, the mayor of the city of Port Colborne and some aldermen. When they went in there they changed their position. They did not want the tunnel; they wanted a third bridge, and the minister was very happy. He said. "Is that what you want?" They said, "Definitely, that is what we want." His mind started to work and the figures started to roll out and the minister said, "The cost is about $40 million for the tunnel, so, looking at 10 per cent interest to finance that scheme, you have a deal. It will cost us only $4 million to put the first stage of that bridge in, and that is one year's interest."

He got a good package deal that day, and I suggest to him that we may still be looking at a tunnel down there, but to complete it perhaps it would be more reasonable to complete that third bridge crossing over the old weir to tie in with Killaly Street in Port Colborne.

I suggest to the minister there are many areas where we can advance some of these work projects in the area to create a number of employment opportunities for many of the young people there. I have discussed with the minister over a number of years the reconstruction of Highway 3 from Fort Erie concession road west to Port Colborne to Gasline. That four-lane highway has certainly deteriorated to some degree so that it is almost opening up right now, and the minister has indicated that at some time they were going to do some resurfacing in that area.

There are all kinds of work projects down there, but it is going to take a little initiative by this minister to advance them a little bit to give the private sector a chance to come on stream in providing employment opportunities in the region.

There was good news just the other day. For example, Atlas Steels have recalled about 40 or 50 employees, and Page-Hersey in Welland have called back about the same number of men. So there is an indication that the private sector is starting to turn around, but it is going to take time to bring the unemployment rate down considerably so we can have a healthier climate.

I also want to talk to the minister about the poor mailing service from his ministry. It is worse than the federal crown corporation, Canada Post, gives now. I received a letter from the minister advising me -- and I appreciate receiving this good news -- of the reconstruction of Highway 58, about 6.79 kilometres at a cost of $1.25 million. I appreciate that because it is going to be of benefit to many persons unemployed in the city of Port Colborne.

The newsletter went out on December 3, 1982. The minister signed the letter addressed to me on December 3, but I received it on December 23. I actually had to pick it up from the local newspaper. It tells me here, "Contract for Highway 58 Goes to Hard Rock Paving," which was good news. When the minister sends out his press releases like that, surely somebody on his staff should be able to send it over to the member representing the riding in much less than 20 days.

Hon. Mr. Walker: We would not do that.

Mr. Haggerty: I know you fellows would never do a thing like that.

Hon. Mr. Walker: No, we would not.

Mr. Haggerty: No, you would not do that, but I am just suggesting you have a rather poor courier service from your office to my office here at Queen's Park.

Hon. Mr. Snow: You will have to speak to the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Wiseman).

Mr. Haggerty: I do not think he had anything to do with this. The minister could just as well have called me over to the other side of the House and said: "Ray, I have some good news for you. Here is my letter." He could have done that.

Hon. Mr. Walker: You should give him a compliment for some of the work he has done.

Mr. Haggerty: I always compliment the minister for the work he does in my area. I think he does an excellent job there, and I have given him credit for it on many occasions. We do have some good working harmony in the riding of Erie, and I want to compliment him on this Highway 58 project. I said that before. He is doing a good job.

But I would suggest that in the new employment expansion and development program that is coming out now, a joint working program with the province, the federal government and the local municipalities, these municipalities are just as hard pressed for capital as the ministry and the government are. With the 20 per cent they have to go out and raise on local taxation, sometimes it is going to be rather difficult for them to get involved in it.

All I am suggesting to the minister is that there are many work projects in the Niagara Peninsula that could be coming forward now, creating the necessary jobs we are looking for in the region, and I think it would make quite a few people happy.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I want to spend two or three minutes making a direct plea to the minister to give some very urgent consideration to funding for the bridge over the Current River on the Copenhagen Road.

3:50 p.m.

I think the minister has been made aware of the situation. There was an accident on the bridge, involving a school bus, on December 3. The road has a dangerous S-curve and the alignments leading up to the bridge have not been good for a very long time. The minister will recall that he had correspondence about this from the municipality of Shuniah a couple of years ago, and I believe a delegation came down to meet ministry officials last week -- a parents' group and representatives from Shuniah, Thunder Bay and Gorham and Ware.

I want to urge the minister as directly and sincerely as I can to do whatever he can to bring the parties together. As he will recall, there is funding necessary from the city of Thunder Bay, from the municipality of Shuniah and from the ministry. One of the problems is that the municipality of Shuniah has only 12 families that actually use the bridge and the road. The road extends into the unorganized territory of Gorham and Ware.

Maybe I could take a moment to read into the record three paragraphs from a letter to the editor that was written by one of the mothers whose children were in the bus accident on December 3.

"For the last eight years, money has been allocated in the capital budget of the municipality of Shuniah to repair or replace the bridge and to correct the approaches, but the work that has been done has been simply to reduce the speed limit to 30 kilometres an hour and the load limit to 10 tons. Short guardrails have been added on either side. Two huge timbers have been bolted to the sides. Sags in the bridge have been filled with blacktop. Essentially. the dangerous situation has simply been made worse.

"Traffic increases steadily as the area builds up. It is simply a matter of time before a fatality occurs. And whose responsibility is it? Is it up to the residents to make deputations to Shuniah and the city? This has been done before. Promises have been made, expenditures have been authorized and later the money has been withdrawn. The officials, both elected and hired in Shuniah and Thunder Bay, are aware that the bridge is unsound and that the approaches are substandard. If they claim that this inaction is to save monies in my land taxes, I offer the following suggestions:

"If my children die in the ravine on the bridge hill because the officials, both hired and elected, are too busy chasing gremlins and land development policy to ensure that a dangerous situation is corrected, I say that they are negligent. And if this deliberate negligence causes death or injury to my children, the prattling about lower taxes will not ease my grief. No, I say that the ravine should be filled up with the cars and the bodies of the people responsible. Every person who has the misfortune to use Copenhagen Road will be there to shovel in the landfill necessary to cover forever those who deserve death by drowning and suffocation."

Obviously that parent was quite upset by the accident and felt very strongly. The situation is serious. I have travelled that road myself in a car in the winter, and the approaches, particularly down the hill, are extremely hazardous. The reeve has written directly to the minister, to myself and to the member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy), and I know representations have been made to MTC officials.

I would just like to leave it at that and ask the minister, very directly and simply, to give the utmost consideration to supplying a portion of the ministry funding that is necessary so that the bridge can be started this summer.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, I will not take long, because while I was in the standing committee on administration of justice, our House leader the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) reflected some of the concerns I have about the ministry, although I would like publicly to dissociate myself from his views relating to speed limits. I feel a possible solution might be to give him five more points rather than raising the speed limit. It would be a lot cheaper and we would not have to do a lot of signage.

I see the member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman) in his place. If he and his committee had their way, we might remove the blight of metric from our Ontario highways by returning to the old limit. My major concern about doing that is that it would cost a lot of dough. It might cause some disunity on the opposite side, because I know how concerned many of the members opposite are about metric.

That is not the subject at hand today, but we do have a lot of metric activity in our schools, in our health care system and most certainly within almost every ministry, such as the Ministry of Energy and the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. We do not want to get into a long discussion on metric today although I see my good friend the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk has just come in.

Apart from his views on Italian speed limits, I have some concern about the safety situation on Highway 6 within my own constituency. The minister is well aware that it has been called the killer highway. In reality, the fatality statistics are not at variance with the provincial norm, which is little consolation to those who have been involved with fatalities or have been injured on the highway.

I recounted to the minister an occasion not that long ago when we had some horses running across the highway. We do have our share of difficulty with that highway, and I know the minister is very well aware of it. My mayor in the township of Flamboro will be writing to the minister in the near future with regard to the concern about not satisfying the traffic warrants that would require and permit better lighting on the highway.

We are very concerned about the situation on Highway 6. Better lighting on the highway would be of great assistance in reducing the incidence of dangerous situations. I think ministry officials are correct when they say we do not technically meet the traffic warrants that would require the ministry to pay for these, but I honestly believe that if we could waive that provision and establish them it would be of great assistance.

The primary problem arises when people who are not familiar with the concession roads in the township of Flamboro are looking for a concession road that is not well marked. They encounter some confusion with regard to the numerical sequence of the concession roads as opposed to the designation of regional roads. Periodically, people turn too suddenly or decide to make a left turn too precipitously, and we have some difficulties. I know the minister has always been attentive to the concerns we have, and I hope he will look favourably upon the municipality's request when it is made.

I would like to speak briefly about the establishment of a licence plate designation for the disabled in Ontario. I should say at the outset that I welcome this designation. It is a marvellous idea and something we might have contemplated some time ago. The major difficulty, and I am sure the minister has been made aware of it, is the process by which an individual would obtain such a permit. There are two concerns. The first is that there is a possibility that these permits could be obtained too readily. For my part, I do not know of anybody who would endeavour to obtain a permit when he is not entitled to one, but that particular certification procedure may be a little loose.

The second difficulty, as I see it, is the lack of standardization between municipalities. People make their presentation to the ministry to get a permit, fill in an application form, including certification from a doctor to advise that the person in question is indeed disabled, and the plate is obtained. However, thereafter the person is required to go to the municipality to obtain a sticker permitting him to have parking privileges in the designated areas within that municipality.

4 p.m.

The problem then becomes a little more complicated in so far as many municipalities are not yet participating in the plan. For many disabled people who are working, this would have to be done during the office hours of the municipality, which creates a bit of a problem. I was told by one person that with regard to many municipalities, if one is confined to a wheelchair, one cannot get into town hall or city hall. Of course, in the city of Toronto that does not apply, but in many it does.

It seems a little difficult for someone who may live in Hamilton, work in Toronto, periodically visit Oshawa, have relatives in Guelph and attend a course at university in St. Catharines.

Conceivably, if one has permits to allow one to take advantage of the bylaw, if the municipality has a bylaw, I am told one would have to attend at each municipal office. However sincere this program is, on that basis alone I sense we may have some difficulties. Within the next year, I hope we might have the ministry play a leadership role in co-ordinating this permit procedure where that plate, that designation, would suffice in itself and one would not have to go from municipality to municipality.

I would also like to reflect briefly on some comments made by my friend the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller) on the situation of Canada Coach Lines. This is something we raised during the course of the estimates and I know the minister is mindful of our concerns. He has probably heard from the vice-chairman of the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority, our regional chairman, Mrs. Jones, on this subject.

We in Hamilton-Wentworth are very concerned about the continuing difficulty that the Hamilton Street Railway Co. and Canada Coach Lines find themselves in as a result of the operating costs of partially subsidizing Canada Coach Lines outside our region. For my part, I really feel we should be doing everything we possibly can to encourage and stimulate inter-regional transportation.

I know the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes) is probably aware of the situation where the Canada Coach bus would come from St. Catharines and go through his constituency, picking people up along Highway 8 -- I think that is the route they take -- continue into what was Saltfleet and Stoney Creek, continue to pick up and even discharge passengers, and ultimately end up in Hamilton. That service feeds our own GO service and our rail and commuter service into Toronto so it serves a very real purpose. It also helps to supplement the operating activity of the bus lines within the confines of the region of Hamilton-Wentworth.

It is of some benefit to us to have those passengers from outside the region, at least by way of their fares, subsidizing the operation of transit in our region. It goes without saying that within our region we should not be expected to continue to pick up the deficit we have encountered, at least in this last year, which we anticipate encountering in future.

I sense responsible individuals in the other regions have recognized part of the problem and they may endeavour to assist us briefly or marginally with some contribution, but I hope the ministry might alter its policy in this regard and give this some consideration because it is going to present a problem. I would not like to see the day when our regional officials, who really are elected by the people in our region and are responsible to them, decide they are going to terminate these runs, because I do not think that would be particularly constructive. That occasion may occur some time in the future: I do not know.

In my absence, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk raised some concerns on my behalf, and I believe on his, regarding school bus safety and motorcycle tests. I know the minister has made note of that. As well, I am sure he is mindful of the question I asked about motorcycle testing. Perhaps the minister may have detected some sarcasm in the question I raised earlier this year. If that is the way he interpreted it, I regret it, because I most sincerely would like the ministry to take a look at the whole issue of motorcycle testing.

I am reliably advised that the minister drives a motorcycle from time to time. He is probably as well aware of the operating requirements and safety requirements as anybody in this House. While the minister is very capable, the statistics we have had at the three-quarter mark of the year indicate that not everybody who obtains such a licence is as well qualified. During that period we had a decrease of fatalities in the passenger vehicle category of some 25 or 26 per cent. That is something the minister and his officials should be commended for.

In a general sense, I believe they are mindful of the needs to improve our safety situation in the province. All too often, when we see statistics that are not pleasing, they are drawn to the public's attention. Invariably, when there are some statistics that offer encouragement, they do not receive the kind of attention they should. I would like to state clearly and unequivocally that for my part I am delighted to see what I perceive to be a trend of greater safety in terms of the number of fatalities. That is very pleasing to me.

What is very alarming is that in the same period of time motorcycle fatalities are up 18 per cent and the incidence of fatalities for passengers on motorcycles is up to an even more alarming rate, over 80 per cent. That is very alarming indeed. Just in the last year, the former mayor of our municipality lost one of two sons very tragically in a motorcycle accident, although that one appears to have been someone else's fault.

It is not just a matter of adding a couple of pylons to the testing procedure. I hope the minister will consider the development and implementation of a very comprehensive test and seek out some expert opinions. There is no shortage of them among people who are motorcycle aficionados, and I believe that would be most helpful.

Very briefly, on the subject of school bus safety, I know my friend the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk raised my concerns with regard to an unfortunate event that occurred at Ancaster recently. It is unfortunate that it requires an accident sometimes to bring our attention to a dangerous situation. That certainly is how I was made aware of it. Maybe these remarks will be helpful in jogging the minister's mind. No matter how much he advertises or communicates, there seems to be some difficulty in the minds of members of the public about the requirements in law as they relate to school bus safety. A particular conundrum, if I can use the word, relates to intersections and the lack of a requirement for the operator to put the signals on at such facilities. That is what led to an unfortunate accident in Ancaster. The minister, with his officials, might contemplate some analysis of that particular situation.

There are two more points I would like to raise briefly. One is somewhat parochial, and that is the issue of the interchange at Highway 403 in Ancaster at Fiddler's Green Road. I would like to commend the minister's staff person, an engineer, Mrs. Boyd, who was kind enough to attend a meeting at my constituency office with several residents of a nearby subdivision at that point who are somewhat concerned about this interchange that has been proposed for some time. While I appreciate their concern, I would like to put on the record that I support the ministry's intention in that regard.

4:10 p.m.

I hope somehow in the design work in the designation of this interchange which we really need, and I think council in Ancaster has reflected that, possibly some of the concerns of the citizens could be taken into account. I am not a traffic engineer. The minister will know that from the years I have spent at his estimates. Frankly, I am not an engineer of any type. I do not bear that burden. Somehow, some way, that interchange might be designed to minimize the concerns of the people in the neighbourhood. I am grateful to Mrs. Boyd for spending the evening with us some months ago.

Finally, some concern has been expressed to me by my friend the member for Haldimand-Norfolk about the ministry maintaining the intersection of Highways 3 and 24 in the town of Simcoe. There is some concern that, in some urban areas where these intersections occur, the ministry may not be endeavouring to maintain those areas as well as it has in the past, leaving some small amount of work for the municipality to do.

These are provincial highways as at Clappisons Corners, the junction of Highways 5 and 6 in the township of Flamboro. The ministry has a responsibility to maintain these highways and to keep them in the customary excellent condition the people of Ontario have come to expect.

That reflects the great concerns I have with regard to the concurrence for the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. I look forward to the response by the minister.

Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I do not wish to prolong the debate on this concurrence. I have some vested interest in moving on. At the risk of sounding a little too parochial, I would like to associate myself with the comments of the member for Haldimand-Norfolk and the member for Wentworth North as they relate to the reduced service it seems is being provided by Canada Coach Lines in the Niagara region.

It is an ongoing concern of the municipalities, the individuals in my riding and those in other ridings around the Hamilton-Wentworth region. This service is the only vestige of any public transit system that exists in the Niagara region at the present time. I would appreciate the minister's comments on that subject.

The member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) is no longer in the House, but I share his concerns about Highway 20 and appreciate the activity taking place on that road at present. The member for Erie suggested it was in dire need of repair. Those repairs are currently being carried out. The plans are ready to go on that section of the road that leads into the town of Pelham which requires fairly extensive reconstruction.

Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to make many comments because those I am going to raise have been raised by me to the minister on a personal basis. I would only like him to take into serious consideration the economic condition of my community when it requests certain projects over which the government has control. In some instances, funding comes not only from this government but also from the federal government.

I know the minister met with city council and that they explained all of these projects to him. We also discussed them on a personal basis, as I said earlier. Because of high unemployment in the community and the difficulty that many people are having in getting any type of employment, and because the heavy construction industry is very slack in the community, I hope the minister will give priority to some of the projects. I will name only those which are in my riding so that I do not take up too much time.

One is the Peabody Bridge. The minister is aware that the Peabody Bridge will eventually have to be torn down and replaced by a level crossing once arrangements are made with the railway, the municipality and the government of Ontario. If the Peabody Bridge were removed, the costs to level the surface would be minimal compared to what it would cost to repair the overpass, and the funds left over from that project could then go to another project in the community.

Another project is the connecting link, the Jackson Park overpass. The Jackson Park overpass actually is a little more than a $500,000 expenditure. Unless it is taken care of in the not too distant future, the expenditures may be substantially greater.

Those are the two projects which are directly involved in the Windsor-Walkerville area.

There is the Huron Church Road reconstruction, but the minister explained that is an extremely expensive project and if it were to be at all possible, it would be phased in over a substantial period of time.

There is also the University Avenue grade separation. In our discussion, the minister mentioned that if there are funds left over from the Peabody Bridge project, they could be used there.

Then there is the Tecumseh Road grade separation, which would have to take place just west of Dougall Avenue. Perhaps the minister will mention these later.

I would also like to discuss with the minister a matter I raised several years ago. It is one I hope he will have some of his officials look into, and that is the use of a battery-operated electrical stop indicator for crossing guards. The ones which they use now are well identified, but I think a battery-operated one which would be illuminated and would have a flashing indicator would be more recognizable by the driving public.

It would likewise be for the safety of the crossing guard. Naturally, he is not necessarily going to stay right out in the middle of the road, but he would be at the side and if necessary he could cross the road, indicating with a flashing stop sign that there is a school bus approaching or that the school bus is standing there and he does not want the traffic to interfere with the students who may be leaving the bus or entering the bus.

Those are my few comments, which I hope the minister will take into consideration. Because of economic conditions in my town I also hope he can provide some employment in the ways I have suggested. It is better to do that than to provide welfare or other forms of financial assistance to people who would prefer to be gainfully employed.

4:20 p.m.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, there are just a couple of points that I want to bring to the attention of the minister, principally the suggestion to use the driver's photograph on the driving licence. I think that procedure is advisable and I urge him to consider it.

This is not the first time the minister has heard this proposal, but I certainly suggest it to him in light of the fact that a number of people simply defy all efforts to keep them off the road. They lose their licence but one way or another, by falsifying licences or through other means, come into possession of another licence and they manage to drive again. While this would cost some money either to the government or to the applicants, I am sure most of the people of Ontario would face that extra burden without any complaint.

I think members of the public are gradually coming more and more to the position that they are fed up with these types of people and want to see the full weight of the law brought to bear upon them. So I urge that proposal on the minister.

As a personal item, I would like to suggest to the minister that when he sends out notices to members saying that such and such an area is going to be paved, a bridge is going to go up, a curb is going to be changed or whatever, he narrow down the time frame a little bit. I do not criticize the minister for making the announcement before the member has a chance to make the announcement, but I think a month is probably a little too wide a time frame. It provides him with more safety than he needs.

I find that, like the proverbial spouse, I am the last one to know about announcements of concern to my constituency. I would appreciate if the minister would cut that time down to approximately two weeks behind the main announcement. I would say that was fair, but I find a month to be a little too wide.

Those are my main concerns, and I hope the minister will take them into consideration.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I want to cover two points fairly briefly. The minister is already aware of one of them, and my colleague has alluded to the other one.

The first has to do with Highway 401 and its repair at Oktoberfest time. As he knows, and as I know, the cities of Kitchener-Waterloo have a great influx of people, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 300,000 to 400,000 at that time. Last year there was construction on the 401 at the same time as Oktoberfest was going on. I understand that particular project was an emergency project and maybe it could not have been avoided at that time. I understand it could not, and the minister, with the assistance of his staff, did the best he could under the circumstances to divert some of the traffic away from Highway 8 as an egress and ingress from Kitchener-Waterloo.

I would like to suggest, however, that in future the minister marks this particular time around Thanksgiving fairly boldly on his calendar and tries to avoid construction in the immediate vicinity during that time so that the many thousands of visitors who wish to come to our area are not impeded by the construction and do not have large tie-ups. During the past year there were tie-ups, particularly the first Friday, before some of the traffic was diverted. It took an extra hour or hour and a half to get into Kitchener-Waterloo. That was excessive, coming from Toronto or some other areas, when it might only take an hour and 15 minutes to drive down from Toronto to Kitchener-Waterloo. It doubled the time and it also created problems and may cause accidents in the future.

The other issue has to do with the matter my colleague the member of Wentworth North has alluded to, and that is licences for handicapped people. I strongly suggest that for the licence that handicapped people have in their car they should not have to get a separate sticker from each municipality they go into. I think that is a hardship on people, for instance, in Metropolitan Toronto, if they have to get one for each municipality, or in Kitchener-Waterloo where there are seven within the region. They would have to get seven different stickers or, if they are travelling from one municipality to another, they cannot use them. The irony of this is that handicapped people have to go in and get extra stickers when they already have difficulty in getting into their car and out of it.

So I just draw this to the minister's attention and hope he will take that suggestion very seriously, together with the suggestions my colleague and others, I am sure, have made to correct this problem. It is not too late to correct it. I think they can do it fairly expeditiously.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, since the debate has been going around to different areas, I suppose everyone has a little pitch of his own to make, and I want to bring one small thing to the minister's attention.

He might recall over the past number of years that about the second year after Highway 401 was constructed between Tilbury and Windsor it developed some famous rolls and bumps in it, so that people would stop their cars and wonder what was wrong with their tires, thinking they were half flat or something.

The ministry first put a very small coating over it, which did not last for any more than a year or so. Then they resurfaced it from Tilbury to Windsor with a fairly thick coating. Most of it is holding up pretty well, but there are a number of areas now, no more than three or four miles in each one, especially on the westbound lane, that have really gone bad again.

Some said it was the way the cement had been installed in sections and that the frost or the heavy loads had caused it to give that rolling and bumpy effect. It has caused a lot of concern because when strangers come in they just are not sure what to think about the way the car reacts when they are not accustomed to it.

So I just draw that to the minister's attention. It is still a problem, and it has been a problem for 25 years. I guess it will be with us as long as we use the highway, but I am sure that if the ministry takes a new look at it with some of its new systems, it can probably have the situation taken care of without too much expense.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be as brief as possible because in four minutes' time I believe the House leaders wish to revert to statements so that one of my colleagues can make a statement.

I appreciate very much the comments of all the honourable members. I have taken notes on them. Many of the items they have mentioned they had mentioned to me privately. These matters are being looked into. Some of them are well under way and some of them are probably completed by now.

The one thing a number of members have mentioned is the matter regarding the handicapped licence plates. This is of concern to me. I am very disappointed at the lack of co-operation from the municipalities. I think it is absolutely ridiculous that if a handicapped person under our legislation applies for and gets a handicapped licence plate and drives into the next municipality, that municipality will not accept the plate.

That is the situation right now. Some municipalities say they have to have their own, that for the handicapped person a provincial plate or provincial identification does not matter; he has got to have one of their tickets if he is going to park in their town. Any help I could get in trying to persuade the municipalities that this is not the right attitude would be greatly appreciated, and those from Metro should please start with Metro because they are the worst offenders at this time.

A number of items have been mentioned about safety and about individual road projects in the members' ridings. I will take their comments into consideration. Certainly I am trying to do everything possible to expedite or speed up as many construction projects as I can within the budgetary limitations I have. I realize a very high percentage of every million dollars' worth of construction work we do goes directly into wages of one type or another.

If I could persuade some people in other sectors of the government and other governments to put more money into road work, grade separations and that type of thing than into unemployment insurance, I think we would all be a lot better off; but so far I have not been able to convince them too much.

4:30 p.m.

Last year the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) in his budget produced another $60.5 million for road projects, of which $7 million went to special municipal projects and the other $53 million to provincial projects. It has all been spent. We were able to advance about 25 or 30 projects with that additional funding. It provided a lot of extra jobs last summer and fall, and even right through into the winter. Unfortunately, with the amount of unemployment we have, it is hard visibly to see the dent that has made, but there would be more unemployment if that work had not gone ahead.

I have a running battle with the House leader of the opposition party over speed limits and no speed limits, and whether roads in Italy are safer than those in Canada. We will never settle that problem. The honourable member believes in no speed limits; I believe in speed limits.

Mr. Nixon: No, that is not right.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The member said there were no speed limits in Italy.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I point out to the minister that the speed limits in Italy are much more aligned to what the regular, average driver drives. They do not need to have platoons of police enforcing speed limits nobody thinks are sensible. That is the approach we should take here. It would be safer.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I personally heard him extolling the fact that in Italy they have no speed limit; so I thought he was in favour of that. I am sorry if I misunderstood, but he has many times told me about his heavy foot and how few points he has left. In fact, I think he ran out of points at one time.

Mr. Nixon: I do not have any points, just debating points.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The House leader for the opposition party mentioned the Roadway Express/Harkema Express matter. I am well aware of that situation. The application has been approved by the Foreign Investment Review Agency. It is my understanding an application will be put before the Ontario Highway Transport Board in the near future, if it has not been put there already. A full public hearing will be held. The redundancy question of the licence will be considered by the board as part of the public hearing process.

That is how I think it should be done. I am sure the honourable members do not believe I should try to overrule, interfere with or lead the board in any way as to any decision. If I were to do that, I think they would have a legitimate complaint.

My friend the member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis) is not in the House at the moment.

Mr. Foulds: Yes, he is. He is right behind you.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Oh, he has crossed the floor of the House. I did not realize that.

He talked about a number of items: licence stickers, lineups, black and white, and yes and no -- I do not know now what that meant.

Another thing he talked about was the uniform fee being a revenue grab. I am sure he does not really mean that, because he knows there is no increased revenue from the uniform fee. I wish he would not try to mislead the members here by saying there is.

He also mentioned the disabled problem; I have commented on that.

Regarding motorcycle accidents, besides the fact I drive one of the things once in a while, motorcycles are of great concern to me. It is one area we --

Mr. Nixon: Yours has six axles.

Hon. Mr. Snow: A six-axle motorcycle? No, that is a streetcar.

As the members have mentioned, we have been successful in the past few years in reducing the number of fatalities on our highways. I cannot say it is the result of any one program. The reduction of the speed limit between Ancaster and Brantford has been a great help. I think seatbelts have helped. There are the new engineering techniques we have implemented, such as partial paved shoulders and median barriers.

There are so many things we are doing together that collectively we are reducing the number of accidents. We reduced them last year and, as the members mentioned, we were 25 per cent below last year at the end of the first three quarters of this year.

But we are not winning the battle on motorcycles; although the numbers are much smaller, one or two accidents vary the percentages greatly. We are looking carefully at the whole matter of motorcycle training and motorcycle testing. I may have something more to say to the honourable members in the very near future on how we are going to attack this problem.

In the matter of the Canada Coach subsidy, someone asked whether I would meet with them. To my knowledge, nobody has asked me for a meeting. I have met with them many times over the past years, but I have not had any request for a meeting from Haldimand-Norfolk. As members know, my policy is that if I get a request from a delegation for a meeting, we will have one.

I can assure the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) there will be public participation in the planning process for GO services.

If there is something I have not commented on, perhaps I will be able to get back to the honourable members through the mail. It takes a month to get from one side of the House to the other, according to the member for Erie. I will try to hand-deliver it to him next time.

Resolution concurred in.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before calling the next order of business, I wonder whether we might have the unanimous consent of the House to revert to statements by the ministry so the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) can make a statement. In so doing, it has been agreed there will be one question from each of the opposition parties.

The Deputy Speaker: Do we have consent for the reading of the statement?

Agreed to.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

CROWN TRUST CO.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the House of the steps that have been taken with respect to Crown Trust Co.

As some members are aware, Woods Gordon, at the request of the registrar under the Loan and Trust Corporations Act, jointly with a consultant retained by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corp., have actively solicited offers from interested parties for the immediate management and ultimate acquisition of the business of Crown Trust on a going-concern basis.

CDIC has advised the government that in accordance with its legislative mandate, it is prepared to advance funds to Crown Trust as may be required to enable all the deposit liabilities and trade creditor liabilities to be paid in full in accordance with their respective terms if satisfactory arrangements can be made for the management of the Crown Trust business by an acceptable third party.

Woods Gordon, acting on behalf of the registrar, and a consultant retained by CDIC have been in touch with some 16 prospective purchasers. Both the registrar and the CDIC are satisfied they have heard from any organization that has a genuine interest in managing and ultimately acquiring the business of Crown Trust.

Written proposals to manage and acquire the business of Crown Trust were received from five parties. Following a detailed analysis of the various proposals by Woods Gordon on behalf of the registrar and a consultant retained by CDIC, the proposal made by Central Trust Co. was recommended to CDIC by its consultant and to the registrar by Woods Gordon.

Central Trust Co. is a federally incorporated trust company having its head office in Halifax. It traces its history back to the incorporation of Eastern Canada Savings and Loan Co. in 1887. Central operates 46 branches in the Atlantic provinces, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia.

Eleven of these and a regional office are in Ontario. Assets of the company are $1.9 billion, approximately double those of Crown, and total assets under administration, including trust assets, amount to $2.4 billion. Central Trust is a public company listed on the Toronto and Montreal stock exchanges and has some 3,000 shareholders.

Under this proposal, Central Trust would manage the business of Crown Trust for a period of five years. In addition, Central Trust would acquire the financial intermediary business of Crown as its deposits mature and would acquire its estates, trusts and agency business as soon as practicable.

Central Trust has agreed to operate all existing branches of Crown Trust throughout Canada and for such purpose would assume all existing leases and purchase all existing fixed assets. In addition, Central Trust intends to employ substantially all the existing employees of Crown Trust.

4:40 p.m.

I am pleased to be able to report to the House that as a result of meetings that took place all day yesterday and earlier today between Mr. Henry B. Rhude, chairman of the board of Central Trust Co., Woods Gordon representing the registrar, and the Canada Deposit Insurance Corp., and their respective counsel, an agreement in principle has been reached whereby Central Trust will assume management of Crown Trust, substantially in accordance with the terms I have just detailed for the House.

The definitive agreement now is being drafted and, of course, I will table copies of that agreement in the House in accordance with the provisions of the Crown Trust Company Act, 1983.

Finally, and most important, I wish to emphasize three features of the arrangements respecting Crown Trust.

First, CDIC has agreed in principle that it will advance sufficient moneys to Crown Trust to pay in full all deposit and trade liabilities of Crown Trust as they become due. Accordingly, the restriction that has been placed on Crown Trust since January 7, that no depositor could withdraw in excess of $20,000, will be removed from the opening of business on Monday, February 7, 1983.

Second, it will be business as usual at all Crown Trust branches throughout Canada commencing on Monday, February 7, in that normal services to depositors and other customers of Crown Trust will resume under the management of Central Trust.

Third, Crown Trust will continue to exist as a separate corporation with its remaining assets under the possession and control of the registrar. Any final surplus available from the realization of its assets after CDIC has been paid in full will be available for the holders of preferred and common shares of Crown.

The Deputy Speaker: We have all heard the minister's statement. It is my understanding from the government House leader (Mr. Wells) that provision has been made for asking questions. I am wondering whether we might follow the standing orders procedure, allowing the first question from a representative from the official opposition, a supplementary, a supplementary to the third party and back, and then a first question with supplementaries. Instead of getting into a whole wrangle, is it agreed that we sort of arrange it ahead of time?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, now that we are assured by the minister's statement that all the depositors in Crown Trust are fully secure and that there is no possibility of any losses, no matter what the size of the deposit, can he make a similar assurance for the depositors in Greymac and Seaway?

Also, now that the pressure is off to some extent in this one instance, can he announce to the House that he has persuaded the Premier (Mr. Davis) to permit a thorough, impartial review of the circumstances that have led up to this announcement today so that we are not going to continue to have this trust company panic year by year as we have experienced it over the past number of years?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: First, Mr. Speaker, as late as today I have received a report that the necessary and complete final documentation and reporting from Touche Ross with respect to Greymac Trust and Seaway Trust are not yet available. I want to assure the House that the moment they are available, the government will review them and make determinations as to directions it must take as a result of those reports. Until that time, it would be inappropriate and premature to start discussing hypothetical situations.

With regard to the issue of a thorough review of things, let us first understand -- and I sincerely mean this: it is my view -- that had we started a royal commission, as the members opposite wanted, the steps we have been able to take to date would not have been possible. As a matter of fact, the moment the companies -- Crown Trust, Seaway Trust and Greymac Trust -- had issued a writ such as we issued yesterday, the parties involved would not have given evidence before such a hearing.

At this very moment, we have before us in court an application by the shareholders of tile three trust companies, saying that the Morrison commission must stop and that its inquiry must alter if it is to continue. So we have that public inquiry -- to which I have given a commitment with respect to tabling its report -- at a halt for the moment; we have this minister carrying out a thorough review of the practices and procedures, and we have this minister committing himself to the tabling of a white paper for reform of the trust industry.

In spite of comments that have been made about the trust industry in this province, I look to that industry as a proud one with a great history rooted deep in small-town Ontario. It is an industry that by and large has a well-deserved reputation and provides, in my view, the majority of mortgages for people throughout this province. I view the industry as an important and integral part of the provincial economy. I intend to do everything to support that sound industry so that problems with the odd company will be minimized; that is a commitment of mine.

We also have in place the registrar, through his agents, in possession and control of the trust companies, securing information in a rapid fashion that could never have been achieved through a royal commission. It is my view that when all this is complete, we will have achieved information and recommendations in a rapid fashion far superior to any type of public Inquiry. It that is not so, I will be pleased to hear other recommendations. But it is my belief that this is what we will have.

Mr. Nixon: I think we can all agree on this side that the trust industry has had a great past. But the minister must surely agree that the most recent present has been something that would be described perhaps by another adjective.

Now that we are moving out from under this cloud from Crown that has involved us and has been hanging over us for so many weeks, would it not be appropriate for the minister not only to say that he is accepting the recommendation from the Ombudsman about payments to the people involved with Re-Mor and Astra but also to expand that to making a commitment to the depositors in Greymac and Seaway so that the air could be completely cleared?

The minister then could go on to say that while his arguments against a royal commission were valid in his mind for the past, now that we are moving out from under that cloud this is a time to review it impartially and for all of us as members of this Legislature to move forward to new regulations which will mean it will not happen again.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: It is my view that the procedures and steps that the government has in place will meet the needs of the required situations that face us and will provide us with recommendations for future directions.

I can only reiterate what I said with respect to Greymac and Seaway. I think it is not appropriate to discuss options with respect to those two corporations in the absence of the information that one needs to assess options. When that information is available --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The member's leader said I was misleading the House the other night about that, but I am not. I have memos today to me confirming that the information is not yet available for me. When it is available, it will be there.

With respect to the Ombudsman's recommendation on Re-Mor, I have clearly said it is being reviewed; recommendations should be made to the cabinet shortly and, following that, an decision that is made will be announced.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the first question by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.

On page 2 of his statement to the House earlier today, the minister said he was launching action on behalf of Crown, Greymac and Seaway. Then he went on to say that if any moneys were recovered, they would first go to Canada Deposit Insurance Corp.; any other funds would go to the preferred shareholders and then to the common shareholders if any further funds were let.

No mention whatsoever was made about the depositors in Greymac and Seaway Trust in that statement. Was that an error in his statement? If it is correct, what possible reason could he have for not giving the depositors in those two companies priority over the common and preferred shareholders? Is he prepared to see municipalities, school boards and so on lose millions of dollars or come after the common shareholders of those companies?

4:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, it is obviously not clear. Since the Crown Trust Co. situation is the only one that is clarified, the reference in that statement is to distribution of assets that may be received on a rescission application in relation to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. obligations and that of the preferred and common shareholders in Crown. Until one knows the situation with respect to Greymac and Seaway, one cannot say what will happen to any funds.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: If it was not clear, I am clarifying it for the honourable member. Clearly depositors have the first call on funds. In this case, we have deposits in Crown Trust, with the proposal that it be operated by Central Trust Co., now being fully assured by that new owner.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify one situation with respect to the payment of funds. Am I correct in thinking that all the outstanding obligations -- such as the $1 million for Kitchener that otherwise would have been paid on January 10 and may have been collecting daily interest since then, or the various millions of dollars of school boards or regional municipalities, if they have become due in the meantime -- can be withdrawn and will be fully paid as of the start of business on Monday, February 7, as well as any depositors' obligation in any amount?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, at the bottom of page 2 of his statement, the minister indicates Central Trust is a public company listed on the Toronto and Montreal stock exchanges and has 3,000 shareholders. Can he tell us who the controlling shareholders are, what the degree of their control is and what their history is in the trust business?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my recollection the figures are approximate; I trust the honourable member will accept that -- I believe a Mr. Leonard Ellen owns approximately 27 per cent of the shares of Central Trust. Mr. Reuben Cohen owns approximately 27 per cent. The Canadian National Railway pension fund owns something above or below five per cent. I believe Co-operators' Insurance owns something in the neighbourhood of two to three per cent. The balance of shares, less than 3,000, is held on a very small and individual basis and makes up 36 per cent of the shares of Central Trust.

Mr. Rae: I am sure the minister knows these figures, but I think it is worth reporting them to the House. In 1980, there were 57 trust companies operating in Ontario, having combined assets of $31.69 billion. Of those 57, however, eight corporate groupings controlled $25.06 billion or 79 per cent of all trust company assets in the province.

The minister will appreciate that one of the consequences of what has happened is that a major player, Crown Trust, is now out of the running, out of the business, except for the carcass he has kindly left to the common and preferred shareholders, and a very substantial company, number five, Central Trust, now has increased its assets substantially, by roughly 50 per cent, if the figures the minister gave us today are correct.

Is the minister not concerned about the degree of monopoly control and concentration in the industry and the problem of diversity of ownership? Rather than just saying he has some concerns about it, can he give us a firmer indication of what he intends to do about it so an industry that has roots in small-town Ontario will still have roots in small-town Ontario and not simply have roots in Bay Street, Montreal and elsewhere, where a very few families at the moment control the vast majority of what goes on in our trust companies in Ontario today?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The member can appreciate that the essence of the business of Crown Trust that gave it some appeal to purchasers was its estate trust and agency account. It was felt by the government and by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. that in order to retain that business, it was important that an established company, be it a trust company or otherwise, with the resources and reputation already existing, could hold that business intact, because that was the key to protecting the depositors.

As to the future, I have clearly said publicly in this House and outside the House that the issue of concentration is one that will be presented for discussion in a white paper. It would be inappropriate to reach a decision before one presents it for public discussion. But once that is over, the member's evaluation of the govern- merit's response should be put very clearly when legislation relating to those matters is put before this House.

Mr. Nixon: Do the minister's last few words mean he is going to accept the position put forward by most reasonable people -- yes, I put it forward -- that the ownership in deposit-receiving organizations ought to be restricted on an individual or corporate basis to 10 per cent and that no person would own or control more than 10 per cent of those shares?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: What I said was the government, through legislation passed last December, has made it clear that any transfer of ownership of shares greater than 10 per cent in the trust company or in any holding company that may control a trust company requires registrar's approval.

I have also said the total issue of concentration and proportion of ownership is one the government feels should be subject to public discussion before any final decision is reached. Their views on the final decision will be capably put by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk and others when legislation is presented to this House, with the government's determination following a full public discussion.

Mr. Rae: Time is definitely a-wasting on this issue. I am sure the minister will appreciate there has been an extraordinary amount of delay over the past decade, both federally and provincially, in dealing with this problem of concentration. While this delay has taken place, the problem has become more severe.

There is a very real problem with respect to not only concentration of ownership but also the fact that fewer and fewer companies are controlling more and more of the business and in a regulatory atmosphere that can only be described as loose.

In that context, can the minister give us a firmer timetable than he has to this point as to the government's intentions with respect to reform of the trust company legislation? Can he give us a firm timetable with respect to the white paper and a timetable with respect to the legislation?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The member can appreciate a fair amount of staff time has been occupied with other matters. But it has been my goal to expedite the white paper in the hope of having it presented for discussion to commence prior to resumption of the House in the spring. That is my goal. I would also hope any discussions on the white paper could be completed by the summer, to be followed by consideration of legislation and introduction, if that is the decision of the executive council.

The Deputy Speaker: This concludes the agreement by all parties.

POWER CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Andrewes moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Welch, second reading of Bill 197, An Act to amend the Power Corporation Act.

Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, the Power Corporation Amendment Act, 1982, is another important step in the direction of increasing both the use and the efficiency of the use of Ontario's energy resources.

Ontario Hydro's thermal generating stations, both nuclear and fossil-fired, produce immense quantities of steam during the process of generating electricity. That steam is a form of energy which can be put to good use at a competitive cost. With this in mind, this House, at the request of the government, amended the Power Corporation Act in June 1981, to broaden Ontario Hydro's mandate so that it can supply and sell heat energy as well as electricity.

5 p.m.

In recent years, various groups of companies have shown Interest in heat energy possibilities near various generating stations. The main interest is centred at the Bruce nuclear power development where a mixed private-public consortium pioneered the concept of the Bruce Energy Centre. This centre would be located adjacent to the Bruce nuclear generating station and would consist of commercial greenhouses and industries which would use steam heat as their primary energy source. Ontario Hydro would produce and sell the steam to the consortium, Bruce Energy Centre Development Corp., which would buy and develop land and supply and resell the steam.

Earlier this year, the Bruce Energy Centre concept was ready to move into the implementation stage. At that point, it was concluded that the project's prospects for success in a difficult economic climate could be enhanced if the production, supply and sale of heat energy were all carried on by one body. It would be further enhanced if the body were well financed, possessed a wide range of project development skills and enjoyed an international reputation in the energy field.

Accordingly, Ontario Hydro was invited to assume overall responsibility for the Bruce Energy Centre project. The purpose of this legislation is to provide Ontario Hydro with the corporate power to do those things which have to be done to make the Bruce Energy Centre a reality. This includes the power to assemble, subdivide, service and resell the land to be occupied by the various commercial enterprises in the centre.

The powers conferred by this amendment are confined in their operation to the Bruce project. This is because it is a pioneering venture and it is not clear whether similar or different powers would be appropriate in the case of other generating stations. It must be remembered that Hydro's mandate is already broad enough to enable it to sell steam from any of its thermal generating stations. It remains to be seen what innovative proposals will come forward relative to these other stations.

This imaginative centre will make use of an energy source, steam, generated right here in Ontario. Putting to productive use this byproduct of electricity generation makes more efficient use of the thermal generation process.

These further the achievements of Ontario's energy goals in a very important ways, but there is another result of this project which in these difficult economic times must be noted. If this project is successful it will have a significant and beneficial economic impact on the Bruce area. This is particularly important as Ontario Hydro's megaproject, the construction of the Bruce nuclear generating station, nears completion.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I have some difficulty with this bill. In the one instance, we feel that in order to make the most of any nuclear power plant we have to put the excess heat to some use, and in this case we are talking about the excess heat from the power development.

The difficulty I have with the bill is allowing Ontario Hydro to be the managers of this effort. The reason I find that aspect of the hill difficult to accept comes as no surprise, I imagine, to anyone in this assembly. We have found over the years that Ontario Hydro's mandate has certainly got away from the great and wonderful things it did when it generated hydraulic power at Niagara and sold cheap power without too much contamination of the environment and in the best interest of the power users of Ontario.

It has moved a good distance away from the original mandate and the thing that disturbs me is not so much making use of this energy that is being given off by that plant. In fact, it is now probably just cooling the lake water beside it. I have no difficulty with that.

If I were to expand on that part of the bill, I would suggest we are caught in a dilemma where one might say that when a country goes to war there are many things one would do that one would not do under normal circumstances. I think we are at war now without having an industrial strategy, without having anything done by this government that would have pulled the Ontario economy back into some kind of focus. We are caught with doing things we normally should not even consider.

I feel this is one of them. I think those people in the Bruce Peninsula are looking forward to some kind of real job creation. People all over Ontario are looking to the same thing. I am somewhat hurt that we may, in fact, inhibit small industry and, in particular, the greenhouse industry in some parts of Ontario from being viable if Ontario Hydro goes too far in what it can do under this bill's mandate.

I might even compare it with the Candu reactors. It does not seem to be good business if one can only sell something at a loss. This is what appears to be the important aspect of this bill. We may be selling the energy that comes off the Bruce plant at a loss.

The members will understand when I suggest that if Ontario Hydro is given the ability to purchase land, to put up buildings, to make loans, to do all these things, it may well be we end up not having something that is good for the country's economics but, in fact, something that is only another diversion of Ontario Hydro.

Ontario Hydro made its position clear in recent times. I will read a small part of the Ontario Hydro annual report of 1981. I think it is significant, as it relates to the mentality of those who drafted the bill. It has to do with the top management of Ontario Hydro and the direction in which it is headed.

It frightens me, because I think if there are any job creation programs, if there are things that are going to mesh with an industrial strategy, if there are things that should be done by the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) -- I am sorry he is not here -- in really drafting a plan for the future, it should be describing where Hydro should fit into that mandate and not keep giving Hydro broader and broader ability to function in areas of the private sector.

Mr. Macaulay made it clear when he was questioned in the Ontario Hydro annual report. We are talking about involvement in Hydro and where it is going. Mr. Macaulay said, and I quote from the annual report: "Instead of working merely to meet anticipated demands, we are now looking at a wider role for Ontario Hydro, and considering the effects of our large construction projects, our exports, our rates, and in fact all of our activities can have on the social, environmental and economic life of the province."

The point I am trying to make is that Ontario Hydro was never originally mandated to go off in all these directions but it was charged with a responsible mandate to provide power to the people of Ontario.

So we have two distinctly different parts of the bill. We have the need to use the excess energy from that plant to provide jobs for the people in the Bruce Peninsula. Also, I am very conscious that on the other side of that plus there may be some minuses, as they relate to where Ontario Hydro is going to get the money to do these things.

If it is a losing proposition, does it mean that instead of 40 per cent of the hydro bill going to service our debt, we will then send more bills to the people of Ontario to participate in some kind of involvement of Ontario Hydro? Ontario Hydro had, in former legislation, the right under the Power Corporation Act to sell steam. They could not sell it. It did not seem that the private sector or anyone else was willing to become involved unless there was going to be considerable help from the government.

5:10 p.m.

I wonder if we have started a new mentality in this province. I wonder if, by giving huge sums of money to the paper mills, to the large car manufacturers, to many other aspects of our society, people are going to hesitate now without having the intestinal fortitude to get out there, take hold of a business, wring it out, see if they can make it pay, and in the process pay some taxes to the government and make the society in the country something worth while. I wonder now if we have not given everyone the idea that they can lie back, and that the government is going to step in there and provide unlimited funds, land, buildings and a cheap source of heat, in order for anyone to take any kind of a chance in this society of ours.

We like one aspect of the bill. It is very important to the people in the Bruce area that we do something to help provide jobs for the people there. But I hope the parliamentary assistant and the minister will keep uppermost in their minds that, coincident with this having some success, they might consider those greenhouse growers in Essex county, the other small manufacturers. I hope there will not be someone there in direct competition to some small manufacturer who is just on the balance right now, not knowing whether he is going to survive. I hope they are not going to put him out of business.

I would ask the parliamentary assistant if he is going to answer these very critical questions, and in that way have the members on this side of the House support something that would appear to be worth while as it relates to job creation, to using the excess energy from our nuclear plants, to doing those things that modern society should be looking to do.

I tell him that the government is charged with a grave responsibility if this goes into effect. I hope he will be able to tell those people whom he might affect or hurt that he will be just as ready, willing and able to help them if the time comes that they suffer in any way from the kind of help that might be given to those people who will settle in this area.

On that note, I would like to say that we on this side of the House, and in particular our party, certainly are going to do everything we can to help job creation efforts, to help the people of Ontario to do the things that have to be done to get us back where we belong, and able to provide jobs for the people of Ontario and give our young people some future and hope in this province.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this bill. We see no reason to oppose it. It has taken a number of years to get Hydro into the business of energy conservation and alternative energy projects, and in my estimation it would be a mistake to oppose that at this stage. After all, the bill simply amends the section of the Power Corporation Act in a precise way so that the powers already given to Hydro under section 56 of the act are clearly defined with regard to this project.

I share some of the concerns that have been expressed by my counterpart in the Liberal Party, and I have disagreed with him, as we know, over the last few months. First, there is a very real question in people's minds, simply because Hydro is such a large structure and agency -- that concern would be there whether it were a private corporation or a public corporation, frankly -- and because it does have virtually monopoly control on the electrical power and distribution in the province.

We are expanding that power into other areas, such as the provision of steam in this case. Some of those concerns about making Hydro less of a monolithic monster and more accountable to both the Legislature and the public are very real and genuine and are shared by all parties in this House, and certainly by the people of Ontario.

Surely the supply of alternative energy is an idea whose time has not only come but is long overdue. For that reason, we are supporting the bill so that Hydro can take the initiative in this case to supply the management skills that are necessary.

Those of us who have had experience on the select committee on Hydro affairs, now defunct unfortunately, recognize some of the very real talent and skill that is available in Hydro. It is interesting that the onus falls on a public corporation. As I read the glossy brochures that were produced on the Bruce Energy Centre -- I picked up my copy at what amounts to the government mini-bookstore for the Ministry of Energy on Wellesley Street; it has its own department -- I noticed there are all kinds of structures or organizations that were put together previously with regard to this project.

There was something called the Bruce agripark joint venture, formed in 1979 and composed of the Ontario Energy Corp.. which was a crown corporation, Huron Ridge Ltd., Consumers' Gas Co., TransCanada PipeLines Ltd., Anderson Flax Products Ltd. and Weston Energy Resources Ltd. It would appear that the responsibility for actually proceeding fell to the crown corporation. Perhaps private enterprisers could not take the risk, as my friend indicated, because they took a look at the project and saw it would not make money. We do not know that.

Those are some of the questions I would like to have answered in the course of this debate. What cost-benefit analyses have been done on this particular project? What kind of revenues does the government expect to get? Will it be a losing proposition for a certain length of time? When it becomes profitable, will we make sure Hydro consumers who may have subsidized this project are fully repaid before it is sold off, if it is sold off? Progressive Conservatives might want to sell it off if there was a sudden right-wing shift in their philosophy.

I do not want to take a long time on the bill. We support the bill in principle. We will watch developments with a great deal of interest. I would like the parliamentary assistant to speak to the question of division of responsibility between Hydro and the Ministry of Energy when it comes to developing alternative energy projects like this. Since we have apparently given this mandate for energy conservation to both the ministry and Hydro, one of the difficult things to sort out is where the dividing line is, if there is one. Do they simply go along on an ad hoc basis, instance by instance? In this particular case, because Hydro and the nuclear power development were there, was the decision made that it was better for Hydro to proceed?

Those are the remarks I have on second reading. It is not a bill about which one can wax indignant or enthusiastic, but it does seem to be a small step in the right direction of getting Hydro fully into the energy conservation area. I reiterate my concern that we also make sure, particularly with this project, that Hydro remain accountable not merely to the minister or the Premier (Mr. Davis), but to the Legislature of Ontario as well.

5:20 p.m.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today since this bill affects a project which forms the heart of a good part of my riding, and has been in the making for some number of years. If members would like to see a short statement of the types of initiatives that were undertaken originally by some of the private enterprise people. perhaps they could refer to the Financial Post Magazine of last fall; I think it was the issue for November or December 1982.

With respect to the comments of the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) about not knowing what the role of private enterprise has been in this, I would just like to say --

Mr. Boudria: I do not believe that.

Mr. Elston: Well, at the present time, certainly. But it is significant that private enterprise was at the heart of dreaming up the idea in the first place.

I think one of the difficulties private enterprise has discovered with respect to this particular project has been that government often is less willing to move in directions that are significant and innovative than is private enterprise. There have been a good number of opportunities in the past for this project to have been put in full stride, if I may put it in those terms, but which have been slowed down at every turn by a government unwilling to act on the initiative and thought processes of small- town entrepreneurs. In fact, at one point the principal figure in the initial development of this idea described himself as having been pushing on a rope for some five or six years.

It is significant that the introduction of this bill today is an admission of some failure by the Ministry of Energy. It was not all that long ago that the Ontario Energy Corp., that crown corporation under the auspices of the Ministry of Energy, became active in this project. It appeared at that point, perhaps in 1979, that something was going to take place in a hurry, but there really has been nothing done for these past three or four years.

It is significant because I think at a time when Ontario needed leadership in establishing jobs -- particularly in my area where, as was mentioned before, the Hydro megaproject at Bruce is drawing to a close; not because it was completed, but because of difficulties with forecasting and other things which occurred over the short term -- there had to be something there to replace the jobs that will no longer be available to the people of my area. It is something for which the people of Huron-Bruce, if I may speak for my riding, and probably and more significantly from other areas immediately adjacent to our area, have been crying out for some time.

I am a product of a rural background. I have seen the people I went to school with drawn off to the large centres for want of planning by a government which does not seem to recognize that there is opportunity for the development of an industrial and commercial strategy for parts of Ontario other than the Toronto and Golden Triangle areas. I have to speak out and say it is about time the government stopped focusing only on the large urban centres, and started using some of the capabilities of the people who live outside those areas. The government should start to focus on the unused resources available in other centres: housing, resources, people and everything else in areas at some distance from Toronto, or for that matter, other larger centres.

It is in that respect that I hope this particular project reflects a chance for areas other than large urban centres to get a foothold in an industrial and commercial activity which will help not only to maintain the population at a reasonable level, to help fund services and all those other things which population levels require it to do, but it will also help hold the young people in an area and provide a vitality to an area which hitherto has provided a goodly number of provincial leaders for the province. I can name a good number of people who have gone through the school systems in our area who now have high places of responsibility in this province. Their efforts could be used just as well if this government recognized that there are resources in other parts of the province that could use their skills as well.

From that point of view, I think this project will help us. I look forward to seeing the day when the sod is turned for the first project up there. I look forward to the day when we can slip back and look at the number of people who can be employed in those centres. I look to the day when we do not have to worry about all the population of Huron and Bruce counties having to leave the area for want of commercial and industrial stability and desert forever the type of initiative which has characterized the development of our area for some time.

It seems to me that if the government realized some time ago what they were actually trying to do in this province, they would have probably taken some positive steps or at least removed the roadblocks which were in the way of this development some time ago. I need not mention and I will not go into very long and detailed discussions about what type of announcements have been made at every stage along the way about how they might very well, if one charted them with respect to dates of provincial elections, coincide with the occurrence of those elections.

I must say that the last time there was a major announcement -- I should not say "the last time"; the last time was budget time; it was the time before that -- was in late February 1981. The Premier spent a whole day in the area of Huron-Bruce during an election campaign but his first stop was to deposit a promise of $10 million in assistance for the development of that park. We heard nothing further for quite some time. It is that place --

Mr. Foulds: He spent three days in my riding.

Mr. Elston: He had $10 million for my riding. He thought he could slip through in a hurry and leave some of his people behind. At any rate if this project, in its pilot form, can provide the impetus for areas outside Toronto -- it happened to be around other sites -- to develop and provide the citizens of those areas with stability from both industrial and commercial standpoints, then I think it is not only well worth it, but something that really cannot lose as far as the rest of Ontario is concerned.

I would like to speak more strongly on the number of bureaucratic tie-ups that have characterized the negotiations the original instigator of this scheme has run up against. I would like to speak about the frustration which has been felt by the people who are members of Chambers of Commerce in not only Kincardine and Port Elgin but the owners of businesses in other areas around the site. I want to speak of a day which was described as Black Tuesday, which precipitated the Premier's offer to one company that he would accept some bids to try to see if the project could be saved from that area because the Ontario Energy Corp. was not showing its responsibility appropriately.

I would like to say, however, I do not want to tie the House up any longer. I want to rise and say that this project will have benefits for my area -- benefits that will have very many side effects that will be of great assistance to our area when it comes to dealing with a good number of other social problems which require active and well-established financial bases with a very active and vital population as well. I look forward to the time when the first development is in operation.

5:30 p.m.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to Bill 197, An Act to amend the Power Corporation Act, and show some of my concerns about the proposal in the explanatory notes.

Along with my colleague the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio), I have been a member of the select committee dealing with Ontario Hydro. We have had this matter raised in committee. We went to the Bruce Peninsula about three or four years ago and reviewed the sites of the nuclear generating and heavy water plants.

We were introduced to local council members concerned with the new proposal for an industrial park for the area that would use the excess energy or steam from the steam generating plant at Douglas Point. There was some discussion then that the proposal would involve running a high-pressure line from the Douglas Point plant as far as Kincardine, even heating apartment buildings and for other important uses in that area.

This would perhaps encourage industry to locate there because of the better deal on energy costs, such as heating the plants and the processing of certain products. One that was mentioned was the Bruce agripark. This is where the greenhouses were to be constructed.

I have been a strong believer in recycling excess steam from these generating plants. I have mentioned before in the House that the same process could be used at the Nanticoke generating plant. The excess steam could be used for other purposes, even heating downtown streets so huge amounts of money would not have to be spent on snow removal.

This bill says "steam." What concerns me most is that it could be an expensive job to pipe that steam about 18 or 20 miles by the time it returned to the plant for recycling. It does indicate to me there is excess steam at Douglas Point. Perhaps more electric generators should be installed, instead of billions of dollars being spent at the Darlington plant. It would add some security to the grid system. One could use the excess steam in that area to put in additional generating plants.

One of the questions raised by committee members dealing with the problems in the generating plant at Douglas Point concerned the safety of nuclear plants. There was some pretty heavy discussion on this.

One could have an event at Douglas Point that could be transported to the steam lines from one plant to another. That is, from the steam to the heavy water plant. If we extended the line from there to the main streets of the community in Kincardine and back again, if there was an accident, one would be increasing the risk of radiation leakage that could have some serious consequences to communities outside the plant itself. I do not know whether the parliamentary assistant has been given any assurance that something like this would never occur. I do not know; it could happen.

The one thing I do find fault with in the bill is that it gives Ontario Hydro the power to acquire personal property. That suggests that if one could not make a deal with some farmer who might want to sell his land, and there are a number of farms in that area, the corporation might come in and say, "We want your farm and we will take it through expropriation."

I look at the word "acquire." It may be that later on through the Power Corporation Act the government will have such power that Hydro could walk in and take property without any questions asked. One thing I find I could really be critical about in this bill is giving a power corporation the power to go in and almost seize property. I do not like to see that word put in. Maybe there are other areas where one could go about purchasing property on more agreeable terms,

I do not think the power corporation should even be getting into this area because I am told there are all kinds of Hydro property there now adjoining the present nuclear plant and heavy water plant near Douglas Point. I am told Hydro has a vast amount of land in areas there upon much of which it might want to erect greenhouses. They could be put right next to the plant without going to the heavy expense of burying the steam line down there.

There are other areas of the bill where I find some fault. Normally any other utility such as a gas utility company provides the services along some street but does not provide them right into an industrial park itself. There may be some problems there and this thing could get out of hand.

For example, they could be supplying subsidized heat or energy to persons in the industrial park and I am a little concerned about that. Looking at the economic conditions that now exist in Canada and the number of persons who are unemployed in Ontario, there may be an inducement in this large industrial park to encourage other industries to relocate to that community.

With the federal government's program and the provincial programs, there often are funds available they will give them to establish a business or an industry in that area by subsidizing them to move from some other community, which needs employment as well, to that industrial park which is highly subsidized with lower heating and energy costs.

One of the reasons the city of Buffalo is having problems with the number of plants that are relocating to the southern part of the United States is because of the high energy costs in the northeastern part of the United States. The same impact could apply here once this park is established by getting industries to relocate and go into that area. There would be all kinds of programs given to industries that say, "Here is the place to come to."

If I were living in Huron-Bruce around Kincardine and Port Elgin, I suppose council would be more than happy to have a program of that nature to bring employment opportunities to that community and to bring the industrial base which is perhaps needed. The other area is the tax base. It is stated in the bottom paragraph that section 46 of the act as mentioned in subsection 56(g) exempts the corporation's property from taxation for municipal or school purposes and provides for payment of amounts by the corporation.

That means, instead of having the normal assessment practice take place, it will perhaps be done on a grant basis. I feel this is another area that could be used to encourage more relocation of industry from other parts of Ontario to this proposed industrial park. That section should be removed and the corporation should be assessed as any other industrial complex in Ontario. That may be giving some preference to -- well, who knows what it may be for?

I suggest it is a good principle in the bill to use the excess energy from any of the nuclear plants for other uses such as central heating for municipalities and industries or whatever it may be. I think that is a good way of using cheap energy and recycling the excess steam from these generating stations.

5:40 p.m.

I concur in that principle, but I do have some reservations about some of its proposals which I think may be used to the disadvantage of greenhouse owners. I do not have to tell the parliamentary assistant that he may run into some flak from the greenhouse owners in the Niagara Peninsula. West Lincoln has a number of greenhouse owners who are supplying --

Interjection.

Mr. Haggerty: There would be no problem at all, but it could be used to disadvantage in an area. It would not be competitive if one sector of the greenhouse industry in Ontario could be highly subsidized by the Power Corporation Act. Greenhouse owners in Elgin and in my area in the Niagara Peninsula might go out of business for the reason that they could not be competitive with their agricultural products later on.

One group is highly subsidized and the other has to pay the heavy price of purchasing natural gas or oil. I suggest there should be some equalization factor built into this bill to make sure this does not happen, so that another industry is not destroyed in some other farming community in Ontario.

I bring those points to the attention of the parliamentary assistant, and I hope he will consider some of the issues I have raised.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, as you know, I represent the vast majority of greenhouse growers in Ontario.

Mr. Andrewes: Come, now.

Mr. Mancini: I am sorry?

Mr. Andrewes: Come, now.

Mr. Mancini: Jeez, he is heckling me, and I haven't even started.

As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted by the parliamentary assistant, I represent the vast majority of the greenhouse growers; and I will try to continue to ignore him, because his knowledge of the greenhouse business, especially in the tomato and cucumber area, is so poor that he really has very little to contribute.

Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to your attention, and to the attention of the House, some very significant concerns I have about Bill 197. I am going to try to outline these in a chronological way, and I will try to bring to the attention of the members in the House more information about the greenhouse industry in Ontario as it is now, specifically in the Essex county area.

Over the past six or seven years I have given many speeches and I have questioned many different ministers of agriculture on this matter, but it appears that because the greenhouse industry is situated in so very few areas, members have other more important things, at least to them, to concern themselves with. I do not criticize them for that but, because of my particular and peculiar situation in representing the majority of the greenhouse operators, I have probably spent much more time than anyone else in the House trying to study and learn their concerns and to bring them before the House.

I want to say the former member for York South. Donald MacDonald, before he was forced to give up his seat, did share some of my concerns about the greenhouse industry and did bring them up in the Legislature either as supplementary questions or as his own questions. He did visit the riding on a number of occasions, I am told. He never invited me to any of his meetings. I would have been glad to attend.

Mr. Foulds: He was probably visiting your riding before you were born.

Mr. Mancini: You are probably right.

As I bring out some of the criticisms I have of the bill, I want the member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman) in particular to pay attention, because he is probably the biggest-c Conservative on the government side of the House.

Mr. Boudria: In the world.

Mr. Mancini: Even more Conservative than the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker).

Originally an ideal was conceived -- I am not exactly sure by whom, and I will not mention any names -- in the Bruce Peninsula that waste heat could be used to create a new greenhouse industry, among other things. I will choose to talk mainly about the greenhouse industry on Bill 197.

Because of this thought -- that all you needed was heat and you could have a greenhouse industry -- things have moved, as one member has already said, fairly slowly to try to put in place a greenhouse industry in the Bruce Peninsula.

Originally it was thought that the government would build the two-mile pipeline to a certain area from the nuclear plants and then ask private industry to tap into the energy, which they hoped to be able to buy at a fairly inexpensive price.

Unfortunately no one seemed interested in that. Some years have gone by, and now we see what the government plans to do in lieu of the fact that no individual greenhouse growers have really been prepared to move up there and go into business. I checked with the president of the Greenhouse Vegetable Producers' Marketing Board, and I am sure his information is accurate.

This bill intends to give Ontario Hydro, one of our favourite crown corporations, more power to do things, more power to become involved in people's lives, more power to spend the people's money.

Bill 197 allows for the purchase of property, it allows for the development of property and it allows for this development to take agricultural forms. It allows for the construction, installation, maintenance and operation of facilities, including facilities for transportation. So one has to assume that if the need were there, they would be willing to buy trucks to haul tomatoes from the Bruce area to wherever they deemed sales were available.

The powers are extremely wide. They allow them to make loans and guarantees. Why cannot the Ontario Development Corp. make loans and guarantees to the people who wish to move to the Bruce? Why must Ontario Hydro usurp that role? They further have the power to define the terms and conditions of the loans, the security and the repayment. The bill gives Ontario Hydro the power to acquire personal property. The personal property may be as shares of a subcorporation.

In my view, the powers we are giving to Ontario Hydro here are almost a blank cheque to tell them: "We have passed this legislation now. Go out and develop a greenhouse industry. Do whatever you have to do to develop it." Those are the blunt powers we are giving that corporation.

What is Ontario Hydro's record? All we have to do is look down University Avenue and we see one of the nicest buildings constructed in Toronto, built on the most expensive land in Canada. I remind the Speaker that there was a dark cloud around the financing of that building. There was great suspicion at that time. Hydro say their mandate is to produce energy at cost, yet they built one of the most beautiful buildings on the most expensive land in Toronto.

5:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Walker: They have the cheapest hydro in North America.

Mr. Mancini: One can only question their commitment to produce energy at cost. We have already been told that 40 per cent of our hydro bills goes to pay for overcapacity. That is the record.

We had to set up a select committee of the Legislature to investigate Hydro's purchase of boilers from Babcock and Wilcox Canada Ltd. and the many hundreds of millions of dollars that were lost in that deal. Immediately after the government won their new majority, they shut the committee down. They said, "No more investigation of Ontario Hydro."

These are the people we are entrusting with a whole segment of our agricultural industry. It appears from this bill and the wide powers it gives Hydro that we are now moving to allow Ontario Hydro to perform state agriculture as a segment of the agricultural industry.

As the member for Leeds thinks on that for a minute, I wonder how many of his constituents want Ontario Hydro involved in state agriculture. That is the same Conservative Party that opposes Canagrex.

Interjections.

Mr. Mancini: I will have some comments for my friends on the left soon.

The Ontario Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) has opposed Canagrex. He says another crown corporation is not needed; more intrusion into agriculture is not needed. Yet he is not here today to speak for the greenhouse growers of Essex county and Ontario. We hear silence from him. It is okay for him to support Canagrex --

Interjections.

Mr. Mancini: We hear nothing but silence from that minister. The record will show the hypocrisy of his public statements. The member for Leeds probably also opposes Canagrex, yet he will vote in favour of Bill 197, which is far worse than Canagrex. I do not want Ontario Hydro intruding any more in my life. Does the member for Leeds?

Let us understand the significance of the present industry. These figures are fairly up to date. I want to inform the House that, province-wide, there are well over 350 individual growers in our province with more than 350 acres of greenhouses; approximately 100 acres are in the Niagara-Brantford area, the rest in the Essex South area. Close to 200 families operate individual farms in Essex South. None of the bureaucrats think that is funny because they are there to expand whatever they have to do. We are moving towards displacing individual farmers for state farming.

As far as Conservative members are concerned, I have become a little tired of having the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture and Food running around Ontario saying: "The farmers are the backbone of our economy in Ontario. They are the spirit of Ontario. Yes, they are the backbone of our economy." But they move in favour of state agriculture, giving little or no consideration to the individual farmers already operating, who have already borrowed money, tried to plan their future, made commitments, carved out a market and are already serving that market and paying taxes to the government without taking a handout with their left hand.

It is absolutely necessary that some of the background of Bill 197 be put on the record as a historical overview. I will not mention the times I gave speeches in the House or asked questions. Those matters are already on the record.

I have a copy of the Owen Sound Sun Times of Wednesday, December 20, 1978, which contains an article headlined: "Greatest Thing Since Sliced Bread, Kincardine Greenhouse Project Could Start Soon." Mr. Peter Szego, project co-ordinator for the ministry, is quoted as saying the following:

"The proposed 100 acres of greenhouses in Bruce county would be constructed all at once by one developer. Provincial tomato growers now consider 16 pounds of fruit per plant per year an average yield, 10,000 plants per acre, and they produce approximately 160,000 pounds of tomatoes per year. With year-round heat, a good grower could yield 20 pounds per plant, resulting in 200,000 plants from one acre."

We already have year-round heat in the greenhouse industry. The 16 pounds includes year-round heat. This misinformation being put out by the government is consistent all the way through, leading up to Bill 197. Mr. Szego was hired and paid with taxpayers' money to go to the Bruce and put out information that would make the government look favourable. That was his only job.

Because of that misinformation, the industry and people wanting to be involved in it were not quite sure what to make of this. Further, the government asked and paid for the Conestoga Rovers report. which was so poorly done that the government should ask for its money back. It is a disgrace: more misinformation.

I want to read to the House part of a letter I sent out, copies of which went to the Kincardine News, the Independent and the Leamington Post and News, so some of the members in the House can understand the exact situation.

"All farmers know that the most important part of farming is monetary returns. I am absolutely shocked at the inflated figures that have been used by Mr. Szego and Conestoga Rovers. Mr. Szego has publicly stated that a greenhouse farm in Kincardine could produce 20 pounds of tomatoes per plant per year. With 10,000 plants of tomatoes per acre, this would equal 200,000 pounds per year of production.

"Mr. Szego further states that the growers receive 50 cents per pound for greenhouse tomatoes (1979 figures). Therefore, according to Mr. Szego, the gross income would equal $100,000.

"The Conestoga Rovers report is even more optimistic than Mr. Szego. They claim that 24 pounds per plant per year can be achieved, equalling 240,000 pounds per acre per year, and they believe they can receive 55 cents per pound from their crop, equalling $132,000 per year."

Mr. Szego further went on to state in the news article which I quoted, and which I will not quote again, that a farmer can make significant sums of money in the Bruce area. Once I informed the Ontario marketing board of these figures used by Mr. Szego and Conestoga Rovers, particularly on how much money they could receive for their product, they immediately said, "Let's hire Peter Szego and Conestoga Rovers. If they can get us that much money for our product, those are the people we have to hire to be the salesmen."

I just have to get this one point in before we adjourn at six, and I will be back at eight. The accurate facts as they are represented to the Farm Products Marketing Board -- an agency the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes) knows about -- are nowhere near Szego's figure or the Conestoga Rovers figures. In fact, only 15.5 pounds per plant, not 20 and 24 pounds per plant, can be achieved on an annual yield.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

3 février 1983