Journal des débats 1983-févr-07 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Chairman, let me say at the outset it is not my intention to participate in the debate about where the power lines from the Douglas Point nuclear plant should be located. I attended at least one of those meetings in Stratford and I was delighted to hear Duncan Allan make his little contribution to the various debates that were going on at the time. Needless to say, I was somewhat relieved to learn the power corridors were not going to traverse the excellent farming country we have in Huron and Middlesex counties; so I will let it go at that.

I listened carefully to the debates this afternoon, and I have to conclude from what I heard that the auto industry is the only driving force that turns the wheels of the economy in Ontario. I have heard few comments, if any, about the plight of small business and the struggle for survival of the farming industry, both of which form the backbone of Ontario's economy. That backbone has been badly fractured over the past two or three years. As a result, the ranks of the unemployed have swelled to a far greater extent than that caused by the slowdown in the auto industry.

I do not want to minimize the problems the auto industry is facing at present, but I am more inclined to think -- we have heard this said time and time again, but I am going to repeat it -- that as goes agriculture and small business, so goes the economy of any nation. If small business and the farming industry thrive, there is no doubt in my mind the auto industry in Ontario will thrive as well.

I listened carefully to the comments of the leader of the New Democratic Party. I heard him spend the first 10 minutes of his debate on the economy trying to explain the Liberal position. If the truth were known, the NDP does not have a position. When it takes a position, it generally leads them into all kinds of trouble --

Mr. Philip: The Grits have more positions than Masters and Johnson.

Interjections.

Mr. Riddell: Well, we have them stirred up now.

I guess it follows that for the member for York South (Mr. Rae) to participate in the discussion on the economy, he has to criticize the policies of the government, which is natural; but to devote so much time and attention to trying to explain the Liberal position must surely be an indication of the weakness of the policies of the third party.

I read the papers today, and I believe the member for York South was quoted as saying: "I like fathering children better than I like politics." I believe that was his quote.

Hon. Mr. Davis: So say we all.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: We're not going to argue with that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Now, there may be some of you too old for that.

Mr. Breaugh: Just because you cannot remember, Jack.

Mr. Riddell: One might conclude from his comment that the member for York South has really discovered he is not in his right niche here at the Ontario Legislature. However, we do want to congratulate him on the arrival, over the weekend, of his second daughter. All I can say is that one has to wonder how long it will be before the NDP research is lit up by two "Raes" of sunshine.

Dealing with the Premier's estimates: The Premier (Mr. Davis), being the overseer of all government policy, I trust, must become more personally involved, in the first instance in a decision of the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) to close services for the developmentally handicapped which has led to very bitter repercussions in the communities affected.

Second, he must become involved in a lack of decision on the part of the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) to render assistance to an industry that is struggling for survival. I will talk about this one first, then I will deal with the closing of the centres for the developmentally handicapped.

I have already indicated the agriculture industry is without question the backbone of the economy here in Ontario. We are the agricultural heartland of Canada, and yet a substantial part of Ontario's farm industry is in serious economic difficulty, particularly beginning and low-equity farmers.

Ontario farm bankruptcies have increased dramatically from 64 in 1979 to 122 in 1980, 140 in 1981 and 176 for 1982. These numbers count only those farmers who were forced over the edge into formal bankruptcy proceedings. It does not include the larger number of farmers who got out of the business while they still had some equity remaining. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture has calculated this ratio at 10 to one. For every farmer who goes into bankruptcy, there have been 10 farmers who have sold while they still had some equity.

8:10 p.m.

The following is a quotation from a short article on this subject which appeared in the Globe and Mail of January 20, 1983:

"A record number of Canadian farm failures in 1982 and the prospect that the situation will worsen this year have led the Ontario Federation of Agriculture to set up a financial team to help farmers stave off bankruptcy.

"This move, made yesterday at an OFA directors' meeting, came as statistics released by the federal Consumer and Corporate Affairs Department showed farm bankruptcies for 1982 increased by 57 per cent over 1981, with Ontario leading the nation.

"The statistics show 410 Canadian farmers declared bankruptcy in 1982 compared with 261 in 1981. Ontario accounted for 176.

"In a brief delivered to the Ontario federation yesterday, OFA executive director Harry Zwerver said that a combination of low commodity prices, high interest rates and difficulty in arranging refinancing have led to farmers having problems with bankers. He said a financial advisory team which could be called in by either the banker or the farmer would referee disputes between the two sides."

It is rather ironic we have reached the situation where there are actually disputes between farmers and bankers, whereas three, four or five years ago bankers could not help farmers out enough. There was always a great degree of harmony there, but now we have reached the situation where there seems to be a lot of disputes.

''The future viability of agriculture is at stake, and although the impact is greater in some commodities than others, it has been said that farmers in Ontario can be divided into two groups -- those that are in financial difficulty and those that are getting there fast."

The reason farmers are getting there fast is that not only have they had to contend with high interest rates over the past years, and granted the interest rates are down considerably, but also last year they faced the lowest prices for their commodities they have had to face for many years. They just did not get a price for any of the commodities with the exception of those that came under the national supply management program.

For some reason, I guess due to a shortage of supply both in the United States and here in Canada, pork prices have held up pretty well. For all other commodities the farmers are simply not even going to come close to their cost of production. This year they are facing low commodity prices. It is predicted they will be low. We do not know what is going to happen to the interest rates.

Mr. Sheppard: Milk is up a little bit.

Mr. Riddell: Well, I mentioned supply management. The farmers who have a supply management program are all right. The agriculture industry outlook for this year has caused --

Hon. Mr. Davis: The milk industry is a good portion of the farm community. I mean, it is not a minor percentage of the total.

Mr. Nixon: The price is up, but they have cut them back on their quotas. The net is negative.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The honour- able member has the floor.

Mr. Riddell: The milk producers are not complaining to the same extent that other producers are. As was already indicated, they have had to take a cut in their quotas. Like all other farmers, they are facing ever-increasing input costs. So they are certainly not in the same financial position they were prior to last year or the year before.

The agriculture industry outlook for this year is cause for concern, perhaps even alarm. With net farm incomes forecast to decline 23.5 per cent, the highest decline in all Canada, our farmers need financial subsidy programs because they are more vulnerable to fluctuating interest rates than most other business groups in our society. Farm operations have a low revenue-to-asset ratio, which means they must invest and borrow heavily for their farm operations but, on the other hand, they receive low returns.

Econometrics Canada has calculated that an increase of one percentage point in the prime interest rates reduces the total net income of farmers by $30 million to $60 million. Members can imagine how much went out in interest when they were paying as high as 20, 22 and 24 per cent.

This government lacks any real commitment to the agriculture industry in this province. In fact, agricultural budgetary expenditures have declined to 1.1 per cent of total budgetary expenditures from 1.3 per cent last year and 1.83 per cent in 1971. I am sure the Premier feels a fondness for that year, because that was the year he became Premier.

Ever since that day the percentage of the total budget that is devoted to agriculture has been dropping constantly. That figure includes the property tax rebates, which should never have been charged in the first place; and now they are doing something about that. It includes the crop insurance premiums, which are paid back by the federal government. It also includes the tile drainage loans, which are paid back by the farmers; granted the interest on the borrowings is subsidized, I will concede that.

If you were to take all those things out of the provincial allocation for agriculture, you would find agriculture's share amounts to a little more than half of one per cent of the total provincial budget. This is hopelessly inadequate for an industry that employs one in every four people in Ontario according to some economists, one in every five according to others. The figure I tend to use is one in every five. In fact, this year's budget has allocated $14 million less for agriculture than last year's.

When we were participating in the debates on the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, I detailed the long-term credit programs offered by the other provinces in Canada to their farmers, and I tried to impress upon the minister the fact that only Ontario lacks any such programs for its farmers.

We have the Ontario farm adjustment assistance program, which the minister says helped out 3,000 farmers last year; but it did not go far enough. We still lost far too many farmers from the land whom we are not going to get back; and unfortunately many of the farmers we lost are those farmers who best know how to farm the land in north Huron, Grey and Bruce counties.

I would venture to say that if I were to go to those parts of the province to farm I would probably not succeed, because I have never had to deal with that type of soil or with the type of climatic conditions they get. I have always been able to diversify where I am now. If I could not grow one crop, I could always put in white beans, soybeans or kidney beans -- a great diversity, which they do not have in the northern part. Yet we have lost the farmers from that part of the province, and it is going to be very difficult for somebody to go up there and try to make a living from the farms in that part of the province.

I want to quote a current report from the Farm Credit Corp. concerning this matter. It states, "Ontario agriculture relies almost entirely on credit provided by the federal government and private lending institutions and is the only province that does not offer a long-term credit program."

At the same time Quebec has extended $347.3 million in credit to its farmers for 1981-82, and Alberta $388.5 million. Ontario is the second-lowest province in Canada in total long-term government credit extended, which is entirely provided by the federal government, and yet our farmers are expected to compete with the farmers in these other jurisdictions.

While the minister continues to blame Ottawa for the problems our farmers are experiencing -- when we raised this in estimates, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) laid the blame on Ottawa -- more of our producers continue to be forced out of the business than in any other province in Canada.

I could outline some of the programs that other provinces have. The one I am going to mention is the one that was recently announced by the Saskatchewan government, whereby they are going to work through the Farm Credit Corp. to give long-term credit to their farmers. They are going to subsidize the interest rate from the present 13.25 per cent to eight per cent for the first five years and then to 12 per cent for the next five years.

8:20 p.m.

We have tried to impress upon the minister that if he does not want to bring in a young farmer credit program, which he promised he would do, then maybe he should co-operate with the Farm Credit Corp. The promise was made in the throne speech, and again in the budget, that we would have a young farmer credit program. It has never materialized. It seems to be sitting on the back burner, and our farmers are waiting for some kind of assistance; so maybe this is the way we should go.

If we do not want to set up another administrative body to look after a credit program for our farmers, maybe we should co-operate with the Farm Credit Corp. and say, "Okay, you lend the money to the farmers and we will subsidize the interest from the 13.25 per cent down to eight per cent" -- as I indicated is done in Saskatchewan -- "for the first five years and to 12 per cent for the next five years."

I hope the Premier might give this some consideration and talk it over with his minister, because our farmers need to have more assistance than they are getting through the Ontario farm adjustment assistance program or we are going to see bankruptcies this spring like we have never seen before.

The farmers cannot take $2.50 for corn and ever hope to be able to continue a farming operation when it costs about $3.15 to grow that crop. I can say the same for soybeans, white beans and cereal grains. It is a disaster. If the farmers are going to stay alive next year, they are going to have to rely on more government assistance than they are getting through OFAAP.

We continue to be concerned with the fact that this government has not seen fit to introduce a young farmer financial aid program, even though such a program, as I indicated previously, was promised to our farmers in the throne speech last year on March 9 and again in the budget speech on May 13.

In August 1982, while speaking to the farmers in Leamington, the Minister of Agriculture and Food stated:

"It is hard to contemplate how a young person could consider getting into farming unless he has a deal with his family to ease in gradually. A beginning farmer is looking at a minimum $250,000 to establish, and probably $300,000 to $400,000. I hope it" -- the young farmers' credit program -- "will be no more than three or four months away. I have asked the province's farm organizations for comments, and I have asked them to get their comments in to us fairly soon."

I know the farm organizations have commented. They have advised the minister on the type of programs the farmers are going to need. Now the ball is in the minister's court. I sincerely hope that before the seeding starts this spring, the government will be announcing some kind of program that will render relief to the farmers in these very difficult times.

As I indicated, the farm organizations have responded. The minister has received the comments of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Christian Farmers Association and the National Farmers Union, and yet we are now told this aid for young farmers is on hold indefinitely.

I again point out to the Premier that all the other provinces have a program to help their beginning farmers.

Quebec introduced an interest subsidy program in September 1982 on long-term loans for farmers 40 years of age and under for establishing farms. The Quebec government pays the interest costs on the first $50,000 for five years on loans under the tandem program involving the Quebec Farm Credit Act and the federal Farm Credit Act.

In Manitoba, farmers under 40 years of age are eligible for a four per cent rebate on the first $50,000 loan for five years. Interest rates on guaranteed loans are at one per cent above the chartered banks' prime rate.

In Alberta, the government provides a variety of loans, including direct loan programs aimed at beginning farmers and family farms. One feature of the direct farm loan program is its five-year fixed interest rate, which is at 12 per cent, with a three per cent reduction of interest for the first five years for those producers who cannot obtain financing elsewhere and whose net worth is less than $225,000.

The only answer from this government to the financial problems facing our farmers has been the Ontario farm adjustment assistance program. This program, while it is better than nothing, is far from adequate in addressing the situation as we find it today.

A resolution passed just a short time ago at the Ontario Federation of Agriculture annual meeting called on the government not only to extend this program -- which the government did, it extended it for a year -- but also to improve it. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture has stated:

"It makes no sense whatsoever for the government to guarantee a new line of credit to a producer without making the new loan eligible for interest subsidy. Frankly, we find it perplexing that the government would choose to deny subsidy on the deferred interest and the new line of credit after having determined that a producer needs interest assistance. As it is presently constituted it resembles a half-completed bridge over which the hard-pressed farmer is invited to take a walk."

It was at the farm show held here in Toronto not too many weeks ago that we heard a very disturbing fact pertaining to OFAAP as it has been extended for one year. In the program last year, the government guaranteed 100 per cent the new line of credit. The farmers now are telling us, as are the bankers, that the government now is only going to guarantee 50 per cent.

In checking this out with the ministry officials, they say this is not going to affect the farmer because what the government is really saying to the banker is, "We are going to guarantee 50 per cent; you have got to guarantee the other 50."

What the Premier must understand is that the banks now are going to be very reluctant to give the farmers this new line of credit knowing that they are going to be held responsible for 50 per cent if there is a default. This is what the farmers are concerned about, and this is what the bankers are also telling the farmers.

The bankers, with their displays at the farm show, were telling the farmers they are going to be very reluctant to give a new line of operating credit now that the government is not prepared to cover 100 per cent if there happens to be a default. The Premier might discuss that with the Minister of Agriculture and Food, because it was a real concern on the part of the farmers once they found out.

I never once heard the minister state in this House, or even comment publicly, that they were changing OFAAP to that extent. It was only through checking with the ministry officials after the farmers had come to me that I learned that part of OFAAP has been changed.

I think we want to take a pretty serious look at it, because when the farmers go in for their operating capital this spring for their seed, their fertilizer and their fuel, etc., I am afraid the bankers are going to say to them: "Well, no; the government has backed out of 50 per cent of that program and we are just not prepared to take up the slack." I think it is something we have to give some consideration to.

8:30 p.m.

It is little wonder that after a year of OFAAP, less than half of the allotted $60 million for the program has been committed for the five per cent interest rebate option. While the Minister of Agriculture and Food goes around the province praising the fact that his program has helped some 3,000 farmers, he fails to tell them this figure represents less than four per cent of the farm population. With the large declines in net income that are forecast and with the low commodity prices that threaten many cash crop farmers this year, this program will not be an adequate solution to the economic problems facing our farmers.

I cannot emphasize this enough, because I really believe we are going to be seeing headlines in the papers come spring of farm bankruptcy after farm bankruptcy; I just hope the government can render some assistance, even if it is just short term until we get through these economic doldrums; but better still, long-term credit, long-term financing would be far more meaningful to the farmers because the farmers could then plan.

Farmers are telling us now that with all the ad hoc programs of this government they find it very difficult to plan five years down the road. But if they knew this province had an agriculture strategy and if they knew that long-term financing was available, then they could plan their program five or 10 years down the road and we would all be much the better for it.

I find it totally unacceptable that this government will argue there is no money to provide meaningful assistance programs to prevent the food producers of this province from going bankrupt, yet -- and I hate to bring this up time and time again, but it really does stick in my craw -- it has no trouble finding $650 million to buy a small share in an oil company to invest in resources outside the province.

Somehow the priorities of the government are all mixed up. We have the primary resource -- land and food -- in this province, and yet we seem to be more interested in spending a large amount of money on resources that lie completely outside this province.

What this province critically lacks is a clearly defined strategy for agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture and Food may recall -- the Premier probably would not -- that the report of the action committee to the minister stated that the provincial government should implement a strategy for agriculture, yet no visible long-term agriculture policy currently exists.

I will say that the Minister of Agriculture and Food, to my mind, is trying. I think he has been a breath of fresh air for the agriculture industry in comparison to some of the ministers the Premier has appointed since the days of Bill Stewart. I was one person who had a lot of respect for Bill Stewart, the Minister of Agriculture and Food when I first came into these chambers.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You didn't always treat him that way.

Mr. Riddell: No, but part of our job is to be critical of programs, although I am one person who will give credit when I think credit is due, and I think Bill Stewart did do a job for agriculture in this province; but since the days of Bill Stewart agriculture has not had the same profile.

Mr. Hodgson: Tell us what you would do if you were the minister.

Mr. Riddell: If you want me to take most of the time this evening, I will start --

Mr. Piché: Take two minutes.

Mr. Riddell: Listen, you shouldn't be interjecting when I am praising the minister. I was just starting to say I agreed with some of the things the Minister of Agriculture and Food has done. I agree with his reorganization of the ministry. I have said in estimates that there were too many Ontario Agricultural College alumni involved in the ministry. My goodness gracious; I could name --

Hon. Mr. Davis: What have you got against OAC?

Mr. Riddell: I haven't got anything against OAC, but we had people all of the same vintage there. We had Gord Bennett, Dr. Rennie and Ken Lantz; and we used to have Ev Biggs, although I thought Ev was a pretty good man. I sat in committee and looked at all these OAC people, all about the same vintage, and I thought: "Oh my God; these are real OAC alumni we have here." I do not know whether the minister followed my advice or not, but he did reorganize his ministry and he brought in some people who had no connection whatsoever with agriculture.

There was Duncan Allan, an economist. I do not suppose Duncan has spent much time on a farm, but he has been travelling across the province and he has been trying to learn. He has been making contact with the farmers. He phoned me one day and said: "Jack, where were you? We spent about three days in Huron county. As a matter of fact, we were in the place of business you used to own at onetime, Hensall Livestock Sales, a great place."

I sometimes wonder at the great sacrifice I made to come to this place. The minister has done some things that are right, yet there is no visible long-term agricultural policy. This has resulted in the introduction of ad hoc, short-term support programs, and while such programs may contribute to the short-term survival of farmers they do nothing to maintain the economic viability of our agricultural industry or ensure a sense of security for the future.

The present overriding need, and I cannot stress this enough, is for low interest rate loans or assistance where the interest rate is subsidized for the consolidation of debts and operating loans of the farmers.

I could go on and talk more about agriculture but I simply make a plea to the Premier that he become involved. He should talk it over with his minister and see if there is some way we can render more assistance to the farmers to keep them on the land. If we lose them, we are not going to get them back and the farms will become vulnerable to the foreign market. This is what we are finding now. Believe me, I could speak for an hour on this subject alone. The only people who are buying land at present are the foreign investors. They are buying up blocks of land in certain parts of Ontario. The Premier can imagine what that is doing to the fabric of small rural communities.

The churches are standing idle. The schools are operating at half capacity. The new arenas, on which all that money was spent, are going to be operating at only half capacity, because when those foreign buyers buy this land the farmers migrate to the larger urban centres and in many cases this is going to leave ghost towns and villages throughout Ontario. That is another topic I will not get into now.

The last issue I want to deal with is the decision of the Minister of Community and Social Services to close the centres for the developmentally handicapped.

I think I can speak with a fair degree of authority on this issue because the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) established a task force, of which I was a member, to visit all the centres that were coming under the minister's guillotine.

We have visited all the centres. I will tell the Premier we did not find one person, not an administrator, not a staff member, not a parent, not even the higher functioning mentally retarded people one talks to about the subject, not one who said the minister made the right decision in closing down these institutions for the developmentally handicapped.

Let me say we are not against deinstitutionalization, but we are starting in the wrong place. We are starting to close small institutions which very much resemble the type of community setting which the minister is striving for and which the Ontario Association for the Mentally Retarded has advocated. But no, we are closing these small institutions, which means the higher functioning developmentally handicapped people are probably going to be placed in the community, even though as yet there are no support services in the community -- something that I will be mentioning a little later on -- but the lower functioning people are destined to go back to the large institutions such as Huronia, Smiths Falls, Cedar Springs.

8:40 p.m.

We have made tremendous strides over the last 10 years in getting the people out of these larger institutions where, in my mind, they have been nothing more than incarcerated. We have been bringing them out into the smaller institution, and if the Premier would only accompany me to the centre that I am most familiar with, the Bluewater Centre for the Developmentally Handicapped in Goderich, if he were to take a look at the programs which are offered there for the developmentally handicapped, if he were to take a look at the facilities they have, the work areas, the recreational areas, the barn -- they just spent $85,000 for a new addition to the barn within the last year -- and if the Premier could just go and see how the developmentally handicapped people go out and care for the animals, it is a real learning experience for them.

Back behind the Bluewater Centre on the shores of Lake Huron they have a lovely campsite, and they take the developmentally handicapped people back there, the residents of Bluewater Centre; whether they are high functioning or low functioning, they go back there for a two-week outing at that campsite. I ask the Premier, where are these same privileges going to be made available to the developmentally handicapped people who are either placed in the community or sent back to Huronia? They are not going to get it.

I watched the developmentally handicapped people who have been placed in community centres in these towns. They are pretty much by themselves. They are more or less alienated from the other people of the community. Not too long ago they endeavoured to open a home in Exeter for 12 very severely handicapped people, and the neighbours just got up in arms. They came into my office. They were enraged. They said, "Is there anything you can do about it?" They went to the council to see if the council could pass zoning bylaws restricting the establishment of community homes for the developmentally handicapped.

They are not accepted in the community. I have yet to visit a public pool where one can see the developmentally handicapped -- the higher functioning people living in community settings -- making use of the pools, because they are certainly subject to ridicule and kidding and jokes on the part of the other people who make use of these public places.

There is nobody crueler than man himself. It is just too bad that this type of thing happens, but it does happen. At the Bluewater Centre they have two swimming pools and they make use of those pools. As I say, they have excellent programs.

When we visited the Pine Ridge Centre in Aurora, the government had just spent something in the neighbourhood of $2.5 million within the last year or two putting community-type homes out behind the larger centre. They had three of these buildings; each building split in half, and each half accommodating six developmentally handicapped people. The administrator told us about the lower functioning people and we saw them, we had a chance to visit the floor; they refer to it as C complex.

If the Premier went up into C complex I would venture to say he would not stay one minute. It was just nauseating. There they were up in C complex, in one room, looking out into space. Some of them were wearing helmets to keep them from banging their heads against walls. Yet the administrator told us it was these people in C complex whom he was going to put into these apartments or homes behind the centre. He said, "Give them a year or two and they will be practically self-supporting."

What is going to happen to those people if the minister continues with his plan? They will go back to Huronia, Smiths Falls or Cedar Springs. They are not going to have the opportunity to live in a more community oriented setting, which is what the minister is striving for and what we would all like to see. It is not going to happen.

I talked to the staff when we were at D'Arcy Place in Cobourg. Speaking of D'Arcy Place, the minister should read Toronto's Sunday Star and the article entitled, "Why Are We Losing Our Home? Retarded Wonder," which says: "Frank Drea said he would come to town before he ever closed D'Arcy Place. The people of Cobourg are still waiting." The minister should read that article and make his own decision.

I am surprised the member is not rendering more support to D'Arcy Place. If he took the time to visit that place, he would see they have a community all their own. They have these little group homes. We were in the homes and saw the facilities they have and the way they live. We talked to the developmentally handicapped people and they are happy. They do not want to move out of that area. They are very happy with their community with the life they have there and the homes.

I cannot understand why we are closing these group homes. I cannot fathom the reason for closing them. It is nothing less than a crime that they are closing D'Arcy Place, Pine Ridge Centre and Bluewater Centre.

There are so many unanswered questions about the decision to place developmentally handicapped people in the community. First of all, there is the assumption that small institution closings will have a limited impact on the community because of size. This is completely false. Small institutions have a very significant impact on small towns. Why has the closing of institutions never been recommended in any studies until now?

There was no long-range planning before this decision was made. If the ministry has been implementing deinstitutionalization very successfully for seven years, why take such drastic action now by closing six of the smaller institutions? Why six of the smaller institutions? Why not deinstitutionalize the larger ones? Why do we not depopulate Huronia Centre, Cedar Springs and Smiths Falls rather than expanding them?

That is what we will have to do, because we are told that only 30 per cent of developmentally handicapped people in these institutions can go into the community. That means 70 per cent will have to go elsewhere. When these institutions close down "elsewhere" is the larger institution, so we are back to what I consider another form of incarceration. Why close Bluewater where there are obvious advantages for care?

I could make a speech about the programs. If only the Premier would go down and let the public relations director show him, through a slide presentation, the type of things they are doing with retarded people, I am sure he would come back and say to his minister. "We have to change this policy." I am convinced of that.

I do not know why there has been a lack of long-range planning. Why have there been extensive renovations of $2.1 million at Pine Ridge Centre within the last year?

8:50 p.m.

I mentioned the group homes that were being established. We walked into these homes and saw dishwashers that had just been dumped off the truck, sitting in the middle of the living room. The administrator said, "When we learned about the program and that these institutions were closing, everything came to a stop." The pictures, and they are lovely, were not hung on the walls but rested on the chesterfields. This government spent $2.1 million to improve the facilities for the developmentally handicapped and everything has come to a standstill.

I mentioned the addition at Bluewater Centre. There has been a lack of participation and consultation in this whole thing. There has been a lack of consultation with parents, the Ontario Association for the Mentally Retarded local staff and the communities where the group homes are to be established. With regard to community consultation, it is important to recognize and concede legitimate community fears about a potential facility. There is a continuing need to improve public awareness in education regarding the mentally retarded.

How will the Premier maintain a high level of volunteerism when centres are gone? He should go to the Bluewater Centre and take a look at the volunteer services there and at the kind of expenditures that have been made by the volunteers. It was the volunteers, according to my understanding, who paid for the construction of the one pool that is there. Are their efforts all in vain? Have they spent as much as $40,000 on this pool only to have it sit idle if this institution closes down?

What will happen to volunteer-funded additions to assets of centres? What of the local communities which have reacted violently against group homes? The Premier should read the report entitled, Not On My Block. The people of the community have not accepted these community homes yet because we have not educated them. We have to go through a period of education before these centres are closed.

Dr. Garry Baker has been going around, trying to carry out the program and to answer the questions. It has not been the Minister of Community and Social Services because he will not go. He has been requested to go and meet with council in Goderich, he has been requested to go into these other communities and meet with the people.

He has also been requested to go to Cobourg and meet with the people. But as an article in October 1981 stated: "While persuading Drea not to close D'Arcy Place, the Cobourg delegation extracted a promise that if he ever did decide to close it, he would come down to explain why. The people here are still waiting for Drea to come down to explain why." That is what the article says. He has made the decision to close these centres, but he is not prepared to go out and tell the people why or ask the very questions I am posing at the present time.

There is a real air of distrust. Let me quote Dr. Garry Baker when he said at one of the meetings, local associations "screwed us in part over 50-50 bed allocation; inflate waiting list figures to justify asking for more money."

Other questions have not been answered. Where are the studies that have led to this five-year plan? That is a joke in itself. It is a not a five-year plan. It is a one-year plan for Bluewater Centre, which is supposed to be phased out this year. It is a two-year plan for the St. Thomas Adult Rehabilitation and Training Centre, because it is being phased out next year.

I am sure the member for Elgin (Mr. McNeil) has talked to the Premier about this. I give him credit -- although I would like to see him stand in his place and criticize the minister for this ill-conceived program -- because I understand he is working behind the scenes. I understand he walked into the Premier's office not too long ago with a group of powerful Tories to tell him his program is wrong. I do not care whether they are Tories, Liberals or New Democrats, I just hope the Premier listened to what they had to say.

Mr. Chairman: I would like to interrupt the honourable member at this time. I had the opportunity of listening to the speaker in my office from 8 p.m. and here from 8:30 to this hour. Could you help me out? I know this is a very sensitive topic but, in terms of the estimates we are doing, could you tie this in to the Premier's office and the cabinet office?

Mr. Riddell: The reason I am spending so much time on this is, in visiting all the centres that are scheduled to be closed, we are getting the same response. The Minister of Community and Social Services will not meet with us. We cannot meet with him to tell him our concerns or to have him answer the many questions we wish to ask. So I was asked, "Could you possibly bring our concerns to the attention of the Premier, since we cannot get to the minister?" That is the reason I am talking about it in the Premier's estimates. It is because I have been requested to do so by hundreds of people across this province who are very annoyed with the decision to close these centres for the developmentally handicapped.

I realize I am taking a lot of time, but I will end now. There are many more things I wanted to bring to the Premier's attention; so many questions have been posed on our travels across the province that I wanted to bring to his attention. We have been told by the administrators, staff and parents that the support services are not in place in the communities. As a matter of fact very few communities have even passed bylaws allowing the establishment of group homes. I am asking that a moratorium be put on the closing of these centres until it can be proved to us that the support services are in place. We do not want to read another headline similar to that which appeared in the papers when the government closed the psychiatric hospital in Parkdale. The headline read, "Madness in Parkdale."

We sincerely hope that if the government carries through with its plan of closing these centres, we will not be reading the headline, "Madness in Ontario." When we were at D'Arcy Place we visited the first and the third floors and these floors consisted of all young people. It would do the Premier's heart good if he went in and visited these people. One sees love expressed such as one never sees with one's own children. Little people come up and want to hug and kiss visitors. It really does one's heart good to go into these places.

After I was able to get away from the administrator -- because administrators are a little limited in what they can say, they know the hand that is feeding them -- and talked to the supervisors on these floors and the staff working with the people, I said: "Okay, take a look at all these young people here on this floor. You tell me how many of these young people can go into a community and cope." They said to me, "About 20 per cent." I asked, "What happens to the other 80 per cent?" They said, "It is a plain and simple fact, they are destined to go back to centres like Huronia." To my way of thinking, that is a crime.

I have seen what they have been doing with these mentally retarded young people. They are showing the developmentally handicapped that they are people of dignity, people of worth. I am afraid we are taking a retrograde step by taking them out of these smaller institutions that approach a community setting, which we all are striving for, and moving them back into the large centres.

I plead with the Premier that he take a very serious look at this. If there was ever a program since my days in this Legislature that is wrong, it is this decision to close some of the best of these small institutions for the developmentally handicapped. These are institutions which are giving the type of care they will never get by being put into a community to cope or by being put back into a large centre where they are crammed like sardines in a can. I hope the Premier will get directly involved in the decision of the Minister of Community and Social Services.

9 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I would like to reply briefly to the two points raised by the member.

I appreciate the sincerity of his observations on the second one -- not that he was not sincere about the others, but I have heard the agricultural ones before. I do not minimize the concerns in the agricultural community, do not misunderstand me, but I was delighted to hear his wholehearted and unequivocal support of the minister and what he is doing. From that I can only gather he is by and large supportive of what the minister is saying in the farm community. I take that as a compliment to the minister, and shall pass it on to him, knowing that the member may not say the same thing when he is in some rural community a couple of nights hence.

Mr. Riddell: But I do.

Hon. Mr. Davis: But he also says, "The minister is not getting enough money." I know what he is saying and I understand it. On the agricultural discussions, in spite of some of the figures the member relays, this government has demonstrated over many years -- I always seem to end up debating various ministry estimates rather than just the estimates of the Office of the Premier or the Cabinet Office, and I am delighted to do so.

I look back at the policies of this government over many years, even before I came here. The person who taught me what little I know about politics was another great Minister of Agriculture in this province for many years, perhaps even before the member was born. I am not sure that is factually correct, but it is close. He represented the area where I first ran which was predominantly agricultural -- in acreage but not in great numbers. Even in my own constituency -- the press does not believe it -- there are still a number of farmers -- not a large number but they are there.

The community in which I live is still somewhat dependent on and related to the farm community. I know something about the industry and some of the concerns. I still have some of the most articulate and vocal spokesmen in the Ontario federation -- actually it is the Peel Federation of Agriculture -- in the riding of Brampton, although they are close to my good friend's municipality, the town of Caledon.

It is difficult for me to persuade the member that while one can point out certain shortcomings in policies today, we have programs in Ontario that other provinces do not have. Some of his observations are valid. I am not going to get into the comparison game between the degree of support here and in our sister provinces -- for instance, Quebec. I have heard this debated many times.

We could get into the total economic situation of the farmers in Quebec, and we could relate other government programs that indirectly impact or are pluses to the farm community we have which our friends in Quebec do not have. A lot of farmers tell me that while they would like to see more government support they are not really anxious to change places with the farmers in our sister province of Quebec. I am sure they have told the member the same thing.

We have to be very careful not to generalize either. A number of the farmers in my community are in the milk side of the agricultural industry. While they have had an increase in input costs -- I have no argument with that whatsoever -- still they have had an equal increase in what they receive for their products. I think it is also fair to state that part of the farm industry has become more efficient over the years. They can compete with anyone in the quality of what they produce and the cost at which they produce it.

A number of them -- and they will never say this to me -- might tell him they are getting a reasonably good return on the investment they have made. I have not met many farmers yet who will say to me, "We are doing quite well." I have never heard any of them say that even in the good years and I never expect them to, but I also know they quietly acknowledge it. We have to be careful not to generalize but they are fairly typical.

We still have a number of tender fruit and vegetable growers in the great riding of Brampton out towards Huttonville. The apple price this year was not what it should have been but, none the less, the product was good. While some of my growers might argue for some form of greater assistance, they find it hard to say in what way. Should there be a supply program for apple production? Would some of the member's colleagues in the area around Georgian Bay argue for a supply program for apples? I am not sure they would. He might ask them and let me know.

Mr. Philip: The former Minister of Agriculture and Food is in the business.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I cannot answer that. I am just posing these questions.

I have met with the fruit and vegetable growers on a number of occasions. In all our meetings they were not really looking for more government subsidies. They were looking for more support through consumption of the product. They are very supportive of the initiatives taken by the Minister of Agriculture and Food in some of those commercials I hear about which the member does not like. He has not referred to Foodland Ontario, which urges us to eat Ontario products. They are supportive of that part of the government's information program. I am sure they have communicated that to him as well.

Mr. Riddell: It has been a good program.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes. They would like to see more allocation for research. There is a growing awareness in a lot of the agricultural community that we really are still only scratching the surface. This is true for prolonged life of some of the products, for marketing them and for the ultimate use of some of them. We think that is one of the exciting areas as well. That is why we have allocated through the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program a certain amount of money for processing and experimentation in that area.

My impression is we could perhaps be spending more on research. I have said to some of the growers I do not have any reluctance in that area, but I am concerned that we do not reinvent the wheel. I hope we are not going to do research here that is being done in Michigan or in Maryland, say in the strawberry business. We should not duplicate what has been done there or in some other commodity area where we can find out what research is going on, and where we can exchange information we have with other ministries or departments of agriculture. The concern expressed or the desire to have more allocated for research makes sense from my standpoint, because there is a tremendous potential in the agricultural community for a greater utilization of that resource.

I could move into the pork area. There are one or two hog producers in my constituency. I have lived through the fluctuations in the hog marketing plan. I remember the days of the debates when Mr. Kohler was the head of that organization. The member may be too young to remember that, but I remember it full well.

Actually, one of the main participants, his son, was a friend of mine in Brampton, going back to those rather heated days and the discussions that went on. We have lived through the development of that plan. While hog prices are up -- and we are fortunate -- I cannot guarantee the honourable member just how long that will be maintained. But the Minister of Agriculture and Food told me Japan is buying an increasing proportion because of problems in Denmark or wherever. As a result, the price has been maintained.

I have always been impressed by the degree of independence of the individual producers in the agricultural community, and I find it just a shade frustrating. The member must have sensed this with the beef side of the industry. I can recall visiting the Ontario Cattlemen's Association and discussing this with Mr. Jackson and some others. There was strong rhetoric: "Keep your hands off our activities. Never get involved. We do not want any government intervention." Then when the market tends to soften a little there may be greater interest in government participation.

They are great individualists; they really are, and I think this is typical of the farm community in this province. They do need assistance and we, as a government, recognize this. One can argue whether we have done enough, whether our priorities have been correct and whether we should alter These. I have a certain sympathy for the young farmer.

9:10 p.m.

I am intrigued by the definition of the young farmer, being 40 years of age. The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) says he still qualifies. I guess chronologically he does not. Chemically he may but I haven't the foggiest idea whether that would be true.

The government has indicated its concern in the throne speech and in the budget. While one can say it is on the back burner, I want to assure members of the House it is not a priority that we are in the process of ignoring. We have to sort some of these things out. There are modest limitations upon our ability to expend money, but we do not believe the agricultural community is being neglected. That does not mean the member will not feel it is in some parts, but I can assure him it is a very important priority with this government.

I have only taken six minutes to reply to what was about 30 minutes. I would love to discuss it at greater length because it may come as a great shock to members, but I do keep an eye on the agricultural community. I know maybe a shade more about it than on some days they are prepared to give me credit for knowing. Do they want to know any more about it? No, I will not get into any more.

I want to deal with the second issue very briefly because I find it a very sensitive and very emotional issue. I have had some modest involvement with the whole development of the association locally in my home community. I do not think there is any member present in the House tonight who can recall my first speech in this House. I can recall Mr. Frost calling me. He said, "Billie, will you move the throne speech?" I did not know what that meant. I did not know whether I was to move the chair, Mr. Chairman, or what I was to do -- I really did not. Anyway, I started to get ready; I got a little help but we were encouraged to put in one or two ideas of our own.

I had been somewhat involved with the Brampton Association for the Mentally Retarded and I said to Mr. Frost, "There are two issues that I want to include in my contribution." This was -- when was the election? -- 1959, and we did not sit until 1960. Those were the days when we sat for about eight weeks and were able to conduct the public's business and have it all done properly, nicely, enthusiastically, and be out of here by Easter.

So my contribution was in February 1960, and I made two points that were very relevant to my home community. One was the insistence -- for me, a back-bencher, my maiden speech -- that the responsibility for educating the educable retarded should become part of the school board's responsibility, not left up to the local association. I did not get a lot of support for that -- there was not a lot of thumping of the desks -- but I said it anyway. The other was a provincial park at the Forks of the Credit.

Actually it was in 1963, I guess, that we passed the legislation that moved the responsibility for the education of these young people into the school system. That was one of the first things I undertook as Minister of Education. I warned Mr. Robarts when he asked me to accept the responsibility that I planned to do this. He supported it enthusiastically. I had to wait until 1971, on becoming Premier, to establish that provincial park at the Forks of the Credit, but it too is there. It is modest but it is there.

I have had a very personal interest in the programs for the mentally retarded in this province. I am not going to get into a philosophical discussion but from my perspective it is amazing what we have accomplished with young people and adults who a generation ago society was prepared to say would never become productive, never become involved economically in the community.

I would not totally agree with those administrators who say that 20 per cent would be able to move into a community and the rest will not. I do not think anybody has the talent or the wisdom or the knowledge to be that definite. I do not think we have reached the ultimate by any stretch of the imagination as to what medical science or understanding or more creative programs may be able to do for mentally retarded people. I know the attitudes of just 20 years ago. I know how far we have come and I know the accomplishments that we have created.

I am not talking about government; I am talking about society as a whole. We have made tremendous strides, but I also know it can be very emotional. I know some parents who have lived through situations of this nature and there is a certain degree of ambivalence. They are attracted to the concept of moving people back into the community. There is the ambivalence because they are not sure whether the programs will be as effective as those given in existing institutions which they know and understand.

I think one of the difficulties in this area is the uncertainty of what may or may not be available in some of the community settings. I think that is understandable, but I would be disappointed if in these discussions we were to lose sight of the general objective the minister is endeavouring to pursue. He is going in the general direction of deinstitutionalization -- I hate that word, I prefer to say we are trying to have it more community-oriented.

I am not going to debate with the honourable member. I happen to know some of the physical facilities. In my own community there is an adult workshop that happens to be in the home where I lived for 17 years of my life. I go by there with some regularity and I know what they are accomplishing. It is a community resource right in the centre of Brampton at 34 Church Street.

I would like to feel that all of us are really not in opposition. I know the reaction we are going to get from the local community. I met some excellent people from St. Thomas; I know the value of the volunteer approach to all of this -- something the member does not want to lose and no one intends to lose.

I would regret it a great deal if people, because they have had an interest in a particular facility, would not transfer that interest into three or four community centres. Surely the same work, interest and personal desire on the part of the volunteers to continue to participate are there. I do know part of what the minister is facing is that we cannot say to the people in community A, "Those are the three or four facilities or homes that are going to replace existing accommodation; these are the people who are going to be offering the programs; this is what we specifically can do for you." So the member faces that rather emotional issue. He also faces, as he says, a move from some very good physical plants. We really do, and I think we can be proud of what was provided.

I am aware of some of the concerns, but not in the same detail. I have not toured the province but I have kept an eye on it and I know the sensitivities of many of the members. I can assure all members that this government is not looking to do something that would be a retrograde step. What would be the percentage? Why would we move in a way that we thought was negative? There is no percentage in that whatsoever. What we are grappling with is an attitudinal problem to a certain extent; our desire is to move in the direction that we think is right, knowing full well that it does create concerns.

It moves people, no question about it. I heard from members on this side of the House as well as this member, and I am quite aware of the concerns he has raised. The member might disagree with what we are doing, but I would earnestly hope he does not disagree with the motivation. We can disagree on how things are done.

I am not here to defend the minister or the government, but I will say in a very personal sense that what we have done and will continue to do for the retarded has been, in my view, what we believe to be best. It may not be the best, it may not be the right direction, but I hope the member understands the motivation is there to improve and not to take a retrograde step. I do not pretend to be an expert, but I also do not accept it when some people say this is a step backward after the progress we have made. I do not think the member means that all of us -- not just the government but the whole of society -- would now be embarking upon a calculated backward step with respect to these people.

9:20 p.m.

Mr. Stokes: I want to get a bit north of the French River for a few minutes, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Davis: North or northwest?

Mr. Stokes: Both; I want to talk about this government's commitment to Design for Development and the one-industry-town syndrome in the north.

I shared with the Premier this afternoon a press release that came out of the corporate offices of American Can of Canada. It said that if they cannot find a buyer for their plant at Marathon it will close, and termination notice has been given to 800 mill and woodlands employees. About an hour and a half after that there was a press release from the corporate offices of Kimberly-Clark or Spruce Falls Power and Paper, out of Kapuskasing, that we will be losing 120 jobs there.

I wrote to the Premier about a week ago. It was the letter that went to the Prime Minister of Canada and to the Premier of this province indicating to him what is happening in the railway town of Nakina, where we are going to have that long-talked-about run-through that will have a devastating effect on that community. They have just completed a very ambitious water and sewage treatment program and they have just completed very excellent recreational facilities. The one corporation, a crown corporation in this instance -- namely Canadian National Railways -- is now walking away from a town it created 60 years ago as a railway terminal because it says it can be more productive, more efficient and more cost effective.

We are allowing them to walk away from a community where this government has literally millions of dollars invested in water and sewage treatment facilities, where we have a sizeable amount of money invested in recreational facilities and where we have an excellent primary school system. We are allowing the major employer in the community to phase it out, and people are going to have to seek employment on a seniority basis in places like Hornepayne, Capreol and, in some instances, as far away as Toronto.

So in the last week three major corporate decisions were made -- namely those by American Can, Spruce Falls Power and Paper at Kapuskasing and Canadian National Railways, notwithstanding the fact that we have a Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier), a Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) and a Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) all coming from ridings north of the French River.

To some extent it is because of economic conditions, but basically it is because of the laissez-faire attitude towards the economy, the attitude that people themselves are expendable. It is the attitude that if there is a fast buck to be made by doing things in a different way, then people are expected to walk away from their jobs, their whole livelihood and any equity they have built up in a lifetime of work, and that is the acceptable way of doing things.

We in the north do not accept that. It does not matter whether you are talking to a Liberal, a Conservative or a New Democrat. We know the 700,000 to 800,000 people living north of the French River in Ontario create between $2 billion and $3 billion of new wealth as a result of our ability to exploit our primary resources. We create a lot of new wealth for everybody in Ontario and, indeed, throughout all of Canada. In fact we create a lot of jobs in Ontario in places other than where the resource itself is stationed.

The Premier will know that for every 10 jobs directly or indirectly related to the forest industry, six are in southern Ontario or elsewhere than where the resource actually is, and that is north of the French River. So we just do not accept that corporate offices can make decisions affecting the livelihood and the future of people living in the north just because they are exploiting the resources that belong, collectively, to the people of Ontario.

I know that time is short but I am sure everybody living north of the French River, including my colleagues the member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy), the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane) and the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché), would have me say this. I am sure all those good people would like to take the Premier back 10 or 12 years to when we had a Design for Development for northwestern Ontario. I think we had one at one time for northeastern Ontario, but I do not know whatever happened to those designs.

All I know is that decisions being made in corporate offices in Neenah, Wisconsin, or in Delaware or Connecticut or Montreal are having a very profound effect on the future wellbeing of a good many people in northern Ontario. I want to know what the Premier has to say about it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not intend on this occasion to deal with the three specific matters the honourable member has raised. The letter he sent to me on Nakina he has already communicated to the Prime Minister of Canada. I am aware of the impact that decision will have on that community and the honourable member will not get me on the side of supporting the decision of Canadian National.

As to Kimberly-Clark of Canada Ltd., I just heard about it this afternoon, and I am told that as far as the employees at Kapuskasing are concerned they will have job opportunities at the other plant. I cannot confirm this so soon, but that is the information I have.

The honourable member probably knows of some of the discussions that have gone on with respect to the facility in Marathon. I have read the announcement that makes it clear negotiations are under way with I think it is James River -- it does not matter who it is. There were other negotiations. I just want to say without getting into any detail at this moment that both the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) and the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) have been involved in the problem at Marathon. I cannot say what will emerge from that yet, but I can assure the member it is a matter of very genuine concern to this government. We have ministers of the crown involved in attempting to find a solution.

The deeper question is the one the member raised: where is the Design for Development? I can recall a great deal of discussion. Some things have happened; some have not. I am not going to lead people from north of the French River astray by saying there is an instant or easy solution to the one-resource or one-industry community. We have seen some diversification taking place in centres such as Thunder Bay. It is fair to state we have seen an expansion in terms of the economic base. It is not that busy at the moment, but none the less there has been a diversification of the economy.

Part of that design really goes back beyond 10 years -- the part related to educational facilities. This is where I first became involved as Minister of Education and Colleges and Universities. The commitment to Lakehead, the commitment to Confederation College, I think, were essential in developing a broader social and economic base for northwestern Ontario. I think they have been great assets to the community.

9:30 p.m.

There is a growing awareness of an area we have not developed properly in which probably, with great respect to the resource sector, the greatest opportunity lies. That is still in the field of tourism. I discussed this at some length with the governor of our neighbouring state of Minnesota last Thursday evening. Even while the resource sector is going to be fundamental to us --

Mr. Stokes: Tell us about that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will share it with the member. It was a very delightful dinner. I said this at a press conference at the Radisson Hotel. The reason we stayed at that hotel is that the Radisson people, and I met with some of them, are very enthusiastic about the potential for Minaki Lodge. They will be the ones who will manage it. They have a chain of other resort facilities, and they too are very genuinely enthused. I want to give the member that report. I met with Mr. Carlson to find out at first hand just how --

Mr. Peterson: I would be too, if I had the keys to the Treasury.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, I was quite impressed with the organization, but that was not the main purpose. He was at the dinner as well, which was interesting.

I was there to try to explain to the governor that we were not out to penalize or to become difficult but that we had a lot of resort operators on our side of the border. It becomes a bit frustrating for a resort operator on our side of the border to have 20 per cent use and to have our neighbours come over with their charter boats and eight or 10 dories hanging out behind fishing in what we would describe as Canadian waters.

I explained to them that we were not out to be difficult, but we were looking for -- to use the phrase the member used and the one I used when I was in St. Paul -- an economic rent. We were out to see that our own industry received something more by way of return. I also explained to him, and I sensed a real measure of support, that it was also partially related to the preservation of the resource; that there was no point in both sides of the border developing a tourist industry that was taking out that very important commodity, the fish, which people go there to seek out, and have it depleted. He understood that.

Mr. Alexander, who is the commissioner of their operations in Minnesota -- the member may have met him or know of him -- is coming here to meet with our minister and some of the others. I think there was an understanding of what it was that Ontario was attempting to accomplish. We hope we were able to smooth some of the troubled waters.

I should also report that while we were there, and I found this encouraging, a young lady who is the head of their environmental agency -- I cannot recall her name; she used to be with the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington -- is very anxious to visit with our Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton). I do not know whether she knew he was single. She was very supportive of Ontario's position on acid rain and was anxious to come here to have discussions on our approach and on ways in which Minnesota could be supportive.

The governor, I should report, was also very anxious, not for any formal structure but, unlike some governors, he felt an ongoing relationship between the Great Lakes governors and Ontario and Quebec would be very helpful. That too was part of our meeting. It went on at some length, and I found it a very informative and, I hope, a positive gathering.

Incidentally, they are going to bring one or two of the American operators with them when they come to visit us here in Toronto. I think any sort of communication can only be helpful.

But we get back to the problem, and I do not have an instant answer for the member, of one-industry communities in northern Ontario. I have listened to some of the suggestions from the members opposite, and I get a lot from my own members. They are very interested in seeing what can be done to diversify some of these areas.

The member is a realist. There are some communities in northwestern Ontario where, if there is no resource sector, the obvious alternative has to be tourism. He will not get his friends or his caucus to encourage Chrysler, if they ever do build a diesel plant, to put it in Marathon. I do not think they would commit themselves to that. Even the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) does not have that much generosity in his heart; he has a lot but not that much.

Mr. McClellan: You can't even get it in Windsor.

Mr. Breaugh: You can give Marathon all the Chrysler plants you want to.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I understand that; the member would say that, being from Oshawa. He is ready to move the General Motors assembly plant from Oshawa to Marathon. I have heard him say so. He is committed to it.

Mr. Breaugh: I said Chrysler.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I thought the member said GM. I knew he would not.

Mr. Swart: No worse than moving from Windsor to Brampton.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member should not get too parochial.

I really think the area that needs a greater degree of concentration, not just by government but by people in the industry, is the tourism field. As one looks at the demographics, at the fact that we are all maturing, at the fact that a higher percentage of our population has matured and at the free time some are going to have available, one sees that tourism is one of the great assets of northwestern Ontario.

I wish I could say to the member we can solve some of the economic problems tomorrow. I will not do that because we cannot. I do assure him, in relation to the important area he mentioned tonight, the plant in Marathon, that is being actively pursued by the government. I will not lead him astray by saying I think we can solve it, but I can assure him it is not being neglected.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Chairman, while I was up on my feet, I got a note saying: "Jack, go ahead and talk about the great highways and airports in the north." It was signed by the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow). I just want to report that he is one of the ministers who does an excellent job on behalf of all northerners.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Chairman, he has just ruined the estimates with that burst of charity. How can you tolerate that?

The timing did not work out on this thing quite the way I had anticipated and, recognizing that other members have a number of things they would like to discuss with the Premier in the limited time we have available, if I may I would like to shift his highly trained political mind to a question that has been occupying this Legislature for some time. That is the matter of the trust companies. It is something I know he is aware of and familiar with.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am an instant expert.

Mr. Peterson: Of course, he would be an expert. Anybody who has been in the government as long as he has, some 20-odd years, and has seen the number of financial collapses under his nose would become something of an expert on these matters, particularly when he chose not to respond. There are a number of questions I would like to ask the Premier if I may have that sort of exchange at present.

Why was it the government failed to move on a new Loan and Trust Corporations Act after the Astra/Re-Mor matter? Why did the government not deem it a matter of public policy priority to come forward with a new act that would address some of those matters? I want to know this government's view on compensating the victims of the Astra/Re-Mor matter. I understand the Ombudsman's report that recommends compensation is still in the hands of the minister. He still has not responded on that matter. What is he going to do?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to endeavour to answer some of these questions and, as long as the Leader of the Opposition does not attempt to become somewhat provocative, I will answer them in a nonprovocative fashion. But if he provokes me, I will --

Mr. Roy: He has reason to be provocative.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I have not been provoked yet.

Mr. McClellan: You should have heard what he said about you a minute ago.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What did he say?

Mr. McClellan: It is unrepeatable.

Mr. Breaugh: But it was true.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Was it true? He did not call me something again, did he? No, he would not do that. He has not said anything provocative tonight, has he?

The Deputy Chairman: The Premier is answering the questions of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Roy: You need some provoking.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I need some provoking?

Mr. Roy: On this issue.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will just answer the question so we will not get sidetracked.

I think the question was, what are we going to do with respect to the investors in Re-Mor? The answer to that has been given by the minister who is responsible and who I think has handled the situations in the past few weeks extremely well. He has told the member that the report from the Ombudsman is there. It is being assessed carefully and the government obviously will have a response. I am not in a position to give him the response this evening.

The Deputy Chairman: There are approximately 30 minutes left.

Mr. Peterson: In the interests of fairness, can we split the remaining time? Would that be fair? I want to be fair to the New Democratic Party. We have to finish at 10:10; is that right? Okay.

The answer is that the Premier is considering the matter. Why did he and his cabinet not decide to come forward with the change in the Loan and Trust Corporations Act in the last two years? Why has this matter slid? Obviously it is a priority now. We are expecting a white paper in the near future to deal with some of the changes. Why did he not come forward with it?

Was it because the former minister, now the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker), was into a phase of deregulation, was trying to cut down on the number of staff involved in the regulation of loan and trust corporations, and the Premier did not see it as a priority, did not see this kind of thing repeating itself?

Can he explain to us why, over the past two years -- and we have pointed out on numerous occasions these kinds of high-flying financial transactions that have been going on right under the nose of the regulators -- the Premier did not know or, if he knew, why he chose to do nothing about it? Can the Premier explain that failure of the regulators in this province, and can he tell me why he did not deem it a policy priority to come forward with a new act?

9:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I guess the assumption by the member is that "a new act" would have solved the problems. Once again drawing on my limited experience, legislation does not necessarily solve every single problem. I find people can be very creative -- and I do not say that in an improper sense -- in finding ways and means around either regulations or legislation. For the member to suggest that because the minister was interested in other things was the reason he did not introduce amendments to the Loan and Trust Corporations Act is not factually correct.

In the past couple of months the Leader of the Opposition has started to take an interest in the Loan and Trust Corporations Act. I say this very kindly: We have been here now for three weeks and I have been here attempting to answer, in my own limited way, any question raised by the Leader of the Opposition. Today was really the first occasion the Leader of the Opposition has asked me something other than what relates to the Loan and Trust Corporations Act.

I do not say he should minimize that at all, but I can tell him that whatever amendments are made to the act in six months time or whenever, we will have a very healthy debate here. I say to the member, and not just related to this, that legislation in and by itself does not resolve every single problem.

There are some who will argue with the member that even if there had been amendments to the Loan and Trust Corporations Act -- say we had had provisions as to the amount an individual shareholder might or might not have had, or whether or not they were grandfathered in, or the question of inspection -- what happened with respect to Crown Trust actually occurred within a 60-day time frame.

I know the Leader of the Opposition has used this as his sole purpose in the past seven or eight weeks. I am not quarrelling with that judgement, but I think we have to retain our perspective. The Leader of the Opposition tries to portray the government and ministers as having no interest. We have had a series of "collapses," he says.

Let us be very fair about it, if one can be very objective. In many respects, this province has been the centre of financial activities for Canada for some time, not to minimize the activities in Montreal over a period of years. From my experience, even since the recent problems of the trust companies, the laws of this province, whether in the securities field or in the loan and trust field, and the reputation of the people involved in the business here in Ontario are second to none.

In spite of our problems, all of us should understand -- and the Leader of the Opposition must know this, because he hears from these people and he has canvassed some of them in the past three or four weeks -- the trust industry in this province is still very highly regarded. The whole investment community in the province is highly regarded. In spite of the fact that it is going to have some changes as well as time goes on, the securities industry legislation in this province is still the guideline for the rest of Canada. The member knows that, because he deals with some of these people.

I know it may be attractive for him to sort of portray that there has been "a series of problems," but I think he should take them one by one, because they are different; they do not follow any sort of common pattern. While he will argue and spend some time saying that if legislative changes had been made -- because one can always second-guess after a series of circumstances -- I just forewarn all of us, legislative changes in and by themselves may not solve some of the problems that are brought upon us by creative people, if I can describe them in that fashion.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Chairman, the Premier agrees with the position I have taken. For some time I have said that even the very best laws in the world are no good unless we have the people there enforcing them.

The second part of my question to the Premier is, where were the Premier's people enforcing those laws? I can remind the Premier of his statutory obligations if he wishes me to, and I will quote chapter, verse, section and subsection if he so desires.

I can prove that the Loan and Trust Corporations Act was violated for two years by Seaway Trust. I can prove that to the Premier. If he does not believe me, I will take him out behind the bookshelf and show it to him. We have been showing him that repeatedly. That has been going on.

Seaway Trust was subject to all sorts of audits and inspections, to the best of my knowledge, at least according to affidavits filed, and no one ever said Seaway Trust was violating the Loan and Trust Corporations Act. No one ever questioned their books.

That company came before the cabinet for orders in council twice, I believe, in January and July of 1982. No one asked questions even though, in my judgement, a prudent observer would have seen that massive increase in authorized share capital from $1.2 million in 1978 to $300 million in 1982 and said, "What's going on here?"

Then one sees a series of giant transactions. The Premier has made a speech, and I am tempted to make a speech tonight. I can refute every single thing he has said, but I have limited time. Then they come before him with a giant transaction, the Cadillac Fairview deal, which attracted a great deal of attention, and he responded. The valuation rules that caused him to move in on those companies at that time were exactly what he had permitted for two years.

The Premier does not think the laws, no matter how perfect they were, could have prevented this. Where were his regulators? Why did his regulators not catch this up to two years ago?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend tonight to defend or be critical of the people within the ministry. The member can prejudge it if he wishes. He already has prejudged it --

Mr. Peterson: I did not prejudge them.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I ask him to let me finish. I did not interrupt him too often. He has prejudged the activity of some pretty decent, able public servants in that ministry. He has already made up his mind. I sense that, and think it is regrettable.

The minister has made it very clear to the members of this House that in dealing with the activities of the ministry -- one is talking about certain individuals -- that is being assessed. It is the subject of some parts of the inquiry that is going on. He will discuss with this House the reaction of that inquiry and whether, in his internal review, the people within the ministry were assuming their proper responsibilities.

I am not going to defend them tonight, but he is not going to get me being critical of them in advance either. It would be grossly unfair. It is easy to look back, now that we have seen a series of circumstances, and say, "The regulator should have been on their doorstep."

I hear the member make speeches about too much regulation, not as it relates to this industry but to others, and how there is too much government intervention. I have watched his thought process on this issue from the time he was in my office when he was told in a way that I had not disclosed to many leaders of opposition parties, knowing how important this issue was, and taking him into my confidence. I am not quarrelling with the fact that very little that was said has remained in confidence, because I am not sure it should have and I cannot recall exactly what it was that we disclosed.

I do remember, just so the member will remember the process, when he was informed by the minister and myself that we were going this far with the legislation, he said to me -- I do not say this critically; I say it in a friendly fashion, as a reminder -- "Mr. Premier, you are not going far enough. You should be doing" what the bill we passed has provided for. I can recall the explanation as fresh as I am here tonight. The minister and I said, "We do not want general legislation on the books," that was like the bill we just passed. We wanted to do it for a specific situation if it emerged.

I recall the member telling me some information about Seaway that I had never heard before. Whether he communicated it to the minister, I do not know. I was not aware of it. I say to the member, please do not say that the minister or the government has been negligent. He is prejudging the issue.

Relating to Crown, the circumstances indicate that all the regulators in the world might not have avoided the situation. I do not know that for sure. I am not making any judgement on Seaway or Greymac, but please do not try to get me into a position where I might be provoked into saying, "There has been a whole series." Let's face it, we have some excellent trust companies in this province. They have an excellent record, and because we have had problems with two or three, please do not try to create the impression that the total industry is in jeopardy, because it is not.

9:50 p.m.

If we look at the whole history, the length of time, etc., I am not going to defend lack of action on the part of any civil servant; if they should have moved, then they will hear about it. But please do not prejudge them and condemn them in advance. I do not think that is fair.

Mr. Peterson: You want to be very careful, because I am the last one who stood up and criticized the entire trust industry. As a matter of fact, the Premier will recall when the government moved in on January 7 -- the Premier was out of the country at the time -- the minister went underground for 10 days and everyone was crying out, screaming for information. People were coming to me because we had been involved during the last couple of months, and I was saying: "There is no panic. Don't worry about it. There is no reason to have a run on the trust companies."

I was taking every public opportunity -- if the Premier does not believe me, he can check the record -- to try to persuade people that there was not a panic. There is no question I was apprised of a great deal of information, which I tried to make the Premier party to in my meeting with him. But I can tell him still --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Nothing definitive.

Mr. Peterson: Just look at every public and private pronouncement I made. Just watch the record. I never said anything that was inaccurate or that created any kind of panic or anything as a result of which anyone who is fair minded ever suggested to anyone that I was attacking the integrity of the financial institutions in this province. As a matter of fact, exactly the opposite was the case. The Premier's lack of information, his absence and the minister's silence were part of the reason we had some of the problems we did.

Had I been the minister, on January 7 I would have spoken to people. I would have had Mr. Biddell, who is a very credible, good and decent man working with a difficult situation, speak to the public. There was no reason Mr. Biddell had to come to me in my office and tell me anything privately, because everything he said we made public anyway. The point is that he is a credible, decent, honourable man, and when you whip off the veil of secrecy, as the Premier is not accustomed to doing, then people tend to believe you more.

The Premier has mishandled this takeover from the beginning from a whole variety of points of view. The January 7 example was a perfect example, down to the last-minute confession to the editorial boards of a couple of newspapers because he had so mishandled it, begging for understanding. Then the Toronto Sun was mad at him, so he gave it the story about Central Trust. It was an incredible story of bungling. I know what he did, and he knows I know everything he did. That is what is bothering him, because it was so mishandled from the beginning, and that is why people do not have very much confidence in him, let alone the fact that he found out late.

But with regard to Crown Trust, I want to remind the Premier we had four or five things we objected to profoundly in the legislation. He did not protect the preferred shareholders; we fought for them. He did not guarantee anything for the depositors of Greymac Trust and Seaway Trust, and I am asking him, what is he going to do for the depositors of those other companies?

I would also say to the Premier I have absolutely no faith in his internal review, just as I frankly do not have very much faith in his internal review with respect to the trust companies taking their money out of Crown Trust, because a lot of the people who were operative in those situations were not interviewed. It was an old-boy phone call to the chief guys asking, "Did you do anything wrong?" and of course they said, "No, we did not do anything wrong; but just in case we did, we will put our money back."

You see, I understand how bureaucracies work. There is an inexorable march to cover their own backsides. If the Premier is concerned about the integrity of the financial institutions, then he will commit himself to a full, independent royal commission or judicial inquiry into this whole mess some time in the very near future. That will do more than anything he can say or his minister can do to restore faith in the financial institutions.

Why will the Premier not do that? I believe that is a reasonable request. I am asking him for two things: one, will be guarantee to this House and to the people of this province that the depositors of Greymac Trust and Seaway Trust will lose no money? Two, will be promise us an independent inquiry into this whole mess to understand, first, why it happened and, second, I hope, give a suggestion so it will never happen again? Those are two reasonable requests.

Mr. Gillies: -- when you told the depositors of Crown Trust that they stood to lose everything. You told Crown Trust depositors in Brantford that they would lose everything.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member has provoked some of our back-benchers -- with justification, because I have followed it very closely; I feel their provocation is justified. I have followed what the Leader of the Opposition has said publicly, and I know some of the things he has said privately, and I will leave those aside.

I say to the member very simply, he cannot have it both ways. I am not saying he led to panic in the streets, I never said that, but I did say to him it was beyond my comprehension how he could, in my office, urge me to do what the government had done and tell me we should be going further, knowing full well what that next step was, support the bill in December and then come in here, whether he had been converted on the road to Damascus or whatever, and vote against that bill. He knew the rationale for it, he knew exactly why we were doing it in that fashion and restricting it to a single company, and he also knew that it had one intent alone and that was the protection of the depositors.

The member should not raise this mythology of the preferred shareholders. They are protected to the extent that the law can protect them and he knows that. He should not come here and try to say to me we have not protected the preferred shareholders, because they do have legal rights under that legislation and he knows it full well.

Mr. Peterson: What are they?

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is very simple. They can sue. They are entitled to anything that is left, and the member knows that. If he wants to make a choice, if he wants to protect the preferred shareholders before the depositors, then he should stand up and say so, but he does not have the nerve to do it.

I do not pretend to be an expert on the Loan and Trust Corporations Act, although I have become somewhat involved. I have discussed it with people in the industry. I make no apologies for that. The member can take a cheap shot at the minister for going down and talking to the editorial board, saying, "I know you have been talking to editorial boards," as ministers should. He can take a cheap shot that because we did not meet with the Toronto Sun we let out the news on Central.

Does the member know what the problem is? He wishes it had been somebody else so he might have been able to stand up in the House and try to embarrass the government because somebody else had been successful because they had a friend who was a friend of the Tory party. He could not do this with Central Trust, and that disappointed him.

Mr. Peterson: On a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman --

Hon. Mr. Davis: We never leaked anything to the Toronto Sun.

Mr. Peterson: On a point of privilege: I think the Premier in a matter like this has to be very sensitive before he starts imputing motive. I think he probably wants to withdraw that. I think he wants to withdraw that, because if he wants to get into --

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will be delighted to withdraw it, but I have to remind the member that he has been the one who spoke publicly about the relationship of Mr. Macdonald, he is the one who talked about Hal Jackman; not me.

Mr. Peterson: Why do you not answer my question? What are you going to do for the other trust companies? What are you going to do?

Mr. Rae: Mr. Chairman, I would bring to the attention of the Leader of the Opposition that we agreed on time.

Mr. Chairman: Yes, fine. We have 12 minutes remaining.

Mr. Roy: It would not be the first time your party did not adhere to its agreements.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Premier a question concerning Seaway Trust and Greymac Trust.

Mr. Piché: Mr. Chairman, while they are arguing, is it possible for me to ask the Premier a few questions?

Mr. Chairman: No. No. Order please. It has been a long night for everyone. I will tell you what I am going to do. The longer we delay this, the more time I am going to add on.

Mr. Piché: How about leaving me two minutes to ask the Premier a question? It has to do with a very important question.

Mr. Chairman: I guess I am not going to do that. I am trying to keep down this rambunctious crowd here.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the Premier is aware --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Don't be too sure.

10 p.m.

Mr. Rae: Let's see how it goes.

I think he should be aware if he is not, and I would be rather surprised if he is not, that the registry for the Loan and Trust Corporations Act indicates that while a number of companies are on a permanent registry basis, such as Victoria and Grey, Crown Trust, National Trust, Royal Trust and virtually all the companies, Greymac Trust was on a month-to-month registry since June 30, 1982, and Seaway was on a three-month registry from September 30, 1981, was switched to one month for January 1982, was switched back to two months for February and March 1982 and was then monthly from April 1, 1982.

The question that comes to mind is a fundamental policy question in terms of the kind of information and notice that should be given to depositors and the kind of protection depositors should have. Does the Premier not think depositors should know a company has been shifted to a 30-day licence from a permanent licence?

Does he not think most people who go into a trust company believe that company is working on a basis other than a temporary 30-day lease? Does he not think the depositors of Seaway and Greymac in particular were entitled during all that period to the notice that would have indicated to them the government had some concerns and these companies were on a 30-day renewable licence, subject to conditions we do not know about and which the registrar has refused to make public?

I would like to ask the Premier how he feels about that. It seems to me to be a policy question of some importance, particularly when we consider, as I am sure the Premier knows, there are other companies at this very moment that are not on a permanent licence basis but are rather on a 30-day renewable basis.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, my recollection is the honourable member asked almost the identical question -- it may have been confined to Security, but he asked the identical question of the minister this afternoon. I did not hear all of his reply, but I do not think there is a great deal I can add to it. I will reflect on whether there is something I can add to it and ask the minister to amplify in his answer tomorrow. I think I am right in this.

Mr. McClellan: You are not sure you are on the same wavelength.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think I heard the question this afternoon and I think it was similar.

Mr. McClellan: What about the answers?

Mr. Rae: It is because I did not get an answer to the question. The question is slightly different because it is a policy question and it is related specifically to Seaway and Greymac. We in this party and the members of the Liberal Party have been arguing that the depositors should be guaranteed, but part of the argument we hear is there are some things the government cannot guarantee because depositors are taking a certain risk when they invest in a trust company.

Any investment is a risk according to the views we have heard expressed on Astra/Re-Mor and other things. The Premier sort of compared it to the stock market and then clarified his remarks the following day. I do not want to misstate what took place. The question I think on everybody's mind is, what kind of information did depositors have? The answer is very little with respect to Seaway and Greymac. What kind of warning were they given by the government that the government itself, the regulators themselves, were concerned?

In fact, as stated by the leader of the third -- Leader of the Opposition --

Interjections.

Mr. Rae: No, I take it back.

Mr. Roy: You are the third party and you are confused on this issue.

Mr. Rae: No, I do not think so. The member has been arguing cases all day and I know he is tired so he should just listen to what I have to say.

He mentioned specifically the problems of Seaway Trust applying to increase its share capital dramatically. I am sure he realizes why it was forced to do that. Its borrowing base was continually eroding because it was expanding so quickly. Does the Premier not think in those circumstances the public was entitled to some notice that a company was on a 30-day renewable licence?

Surely the Premier will agree that walking into a trust company is a substantially different situation from walking into any other financial institution or walking into any financial institution which is not in the same position. I find it hard to understand how the government can argue it has no responsibility to depositors when the government itself took a calculated risk in continuing to renew the licence on a month-to-month basis. Seeing that the government was acting in that way, on the basis of whatever information it may or may not have had, does the Premier not feel that at least the public is entitled to know whether a company is on a permanent licence or on a renewable one?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I cannot argue this because, quite frankly, until some of us became instant experts on the subject, I think the average person in this House did not realize that some trust companies acted "on a permanent licence," which is a bit of a misnomer as well, incidentally, and on a 30-day or 60-day licence. I know the member knew that -- I am not sure he did -- but I can tell him most people did not, and still do not. I think the real concern here is whether the ministry or the government had sufficient information that it should have been communicated to depositors.

Why is somebody on a 30-day notice? Are the depositors at risk? I cannot answer that for the member, but I think we are centring on an issue that may or may not be related to the broader issue. I cannot help the member in any way other than what I have just said and what the minister communicated this afternoon. What does the 30 days mean? Is it a question of the depositors being at risk or not? I cannot answer that question for the member.

Mr. Rae: If I can just make one final attempt to get an answer from the Premier to this basic question, does he not appreciate that in all the calculations the ministry has made, and is making, with regard to a particular company that the people it cannot ignore in terms of allowing them to make a fundamental choice are the depositors?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have no argument there.

Mr. Rae: If there is no argument, then what about those depositors who put their money in after those companies went on a month-to-month basis and were not informed by the government that this had happened? Does the Premier not feel some obligation at least to those investors who put their money in not knowing that the government had changed the conditions under which that company had achieved its original licence and its original registry as a trust company? Surely the Premier would recognize a different sense of obligation to those investors and to those depositors, since they were not given the chance to act on the basis of information the government had.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Once again we are getting into an area where the information is not all available. I do not want to prejudice anything in this discussion. All I am saying to the member is I think the obligation relates to the question of whether the depositors are secure or not. If the member feels the ministry did not act properly on this issue, I think he is making a prejudgement. In fairness, I do not think he is making that judgement yet, unlike the Leader of the Opposition who has already made his own mental determination.

I did not really finish. Can I try to get the member to understand one thing? I know part of his main thrust has been to have a royal commission. That was his reaction from day one. I think it is fair to state that on several occasions, in some of his political speeches, the member has said the Premier of this province always sweeps things under the rug by having a royal commission, that we have had too many royal commissions, that we do not need any royal commissions. Yet the member is calling for a royal commission.

I think I am reasonably knowledgeable on the subject and I can be completely objective. From my standpoint, if the government had decided to call for a royal commission in the first few days, then without any question what the government has been able to do with Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. and others, which has now guaranteed depositors in Crown Trust their security, would not have happened.

We do not know yet about Seaway and Greymac, but I can predict for the member with total accuracy, if we had gone the route of a royal commission and had not been able to take these other steps, if they had been able to use the laws, and that is what the laws are for -- the delays, the length of time, the process we would have gone through -- we would not have been in a position to secure the depositors in Crown Trust. I say that very simply.

The member may not agree with it, but I do not think there is a person knowledgeable in the industry, or who has some awareness of what royal commissions are about, the length of time they can take and the process that is involved, who would not support that point of view. I think the decision we made at that time was a good one.

We have had royal commissions. As the member has pointed out in many speeches, they are devices government has used to get rid of problems. We were not looking to get rid of this problem, we were looking to solve it, and I think we have done it.

Mr. McClellan: Is that a confession?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No. I did not say we were getting rid of problems. It is others who have said that about us. We would never do that.

Mr. Chairman: The time has expired.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, I understand there is no other item on the agenda.

Mr. Chairman: That is it. It is all over.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, I have a motion.

Mr. Chairman: What is your motion?

Mr. Roy: I move unanimous consent of the House to continue for another 20 minutes.

Mr. Chairman: Your motion is out of order.

Mr. Roy: No, it is not out of order. A motion like that is always in order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: You have heard the motion. Do we have unanimous consent?

Motion negatived.

Mr. Roy: The record should show it is the Conservative back-benchers who want to --

Hon. Mr. Davis: The record should show that the member for Ottawa East has not been here all day.

Mr. Chairman: We are dealing with votes 201 and 301. Is it the pleasure of the House that these votes carry?

Votes 201 and 301 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: This completes consideration of the estimates of the Office of the Premier and of Cabinet Office.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Gregory, the committee of supply reported certain resolutions.

Assistant Clerk: Mr. Cureatz from the committee of supply reports the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the government ministries named be granted to her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983:

Reading dispensed with. [See appendix, page 7334]

Resolution concurred in.

The House adjourned at 10:14 p.m.

APPENDIX

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

Mr. Cureatz from the committee of supply reported the following resolutions which were concurred in by the House:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the government ministries named be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983:

MINISTRY OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS

Ministry administration program, $3,696,900; northern economic development program, $72,690,0000; northern transportation program, $81,813,000; northern community services and development program, $20,858,000.

MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Ministry administration program, $9,118,300; provision of accommodation program, $162,- 923,700; real property program, $21,305,100; upkeep of accommodation program, $97,206,100; supply and services program, $63,634,000; communication and computer services program, $11,294,400.

MANAGEMENT BOARD

Ministry administration program, $250,269,400; policy development and analysis program, $8,647,200; personnel audit program, $327,700; employee relations program, $1,410,400; government personnel services program, $931,800.

MINISTRY OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

Ministry administration program, $1,160,200; intergovernmental relations program, $4,250,000; French-language services and Franco-Ontarian affairs program, $1,643,300.

MINISTRY OF REVENUE

Ministry administration program, $19,681,500; tax revenue program, $55,383,900; guaranteed income and tax grants program, $450,188,900; property assessment program, $74,406,400.

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD

Ministry administration program, $12,348,200; agricultural marketing and industry development program, $150,539,100; agricultural technology and field services program, $73,129,400.

MINISTRY OF TREASURY AND ECONOMICS

Ministry administration program, $5,040,000; treasury program, $3,377,000; budget and intergovernmental finance policy program, $4,967,000; economic policy program, $184,128,000; central statistical services program, $1,509,000; Ontario Economic Council program, $1,288,000.

OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR

Office of the Lieutenant Governor program, $229,800.

OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

Office of the Premier program, $2,058,900.

CABINET OFFICE

Cabinet Office program, $1,529,400.

That supply in the following supplementary amounts and to defray the expenses of the government ministries named be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983:

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD

Agricultural marketing and industry development program, $1,900,000.

MINISTRY OF TREASURY AND ECONOMICS

Economic policy program, $171,000,000; and further supplementaries: economic policy program, $70,000,000.

MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES

Adults' and children's services program, $97,030,100.

7 février 1983