Journal des débats 1984-nov-23 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the passing of a distinguished constituent of Scarborough and an extremely distinguished Ontario public servant for more than 50 years. Mr. Ted Littleford, who was the chairman of the Soldiers' Aid Commission, died last night after something that was very typical of him, a very valiant fight for many months against a terminal illness.

I am sure some of the more veteran members of the House will recall the work of Mr. Littleford in the Soldiers' Aid Commission, which is probably one of the most successful of provincial bodies over the years, since it was set up specifically to deal with the offspring of those who served in the First World War. I think it is a tribute to governments of this province that of all jurisdictions, though the numbers of veterans of the First World War are declining because of age, we have still kept our commitment to ensure that their dependants are protected against the vicissitudes of life.

Mr. Littleford was a veteran of the First World War in which he was gassed at the Somme. In the Second World War he held the rank of captain and served overseas again as a recreational officer with the Royal Canadian Legion. For 34 years he was a very valued member of the Ministry of Community and Social Services. His work after retirement led him to become an alderman for six years in ward 4 in Scarborough where he served with distinction.

On this occasion I am sure the sympathy of the Legislature will go out to the family. We have lost a most distinguished public servant.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of the House, and there is a precedent for moving the adjournment of the House. You have accepted that motion before. I am not going to sit here and try to conduct the business of this province with four cabinet ministers present.

It is ridiculous. If you cannot do it, we are leaving. We are not going to put up with this any more. When they have ministers here to answer questions, then we will be here to discuss the business of this province.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of almost the entire cabinet and of people of any substance, I will direct a question to the minister responsible for everything these days, the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch).

CHLORINE LEAK

Mr. Foulds: Oh, I see the Minister of the Environment advancing to his place. If he is anything, he is a man of substance. I would actually like to direct my first question to him.

Is the Ministry of the Environment conducting an investigation that will be made public into the chlorine leak at the Boise Cascade mill in Fort Frances on Thursday, November 15, which required the evacuation of the hospital and of one third to one half the town, including two schools? What steps are being taken to ensure that this potential disaster, which was averted simply because at the last moment the wind took the cloud of chlorine out and above the hospital and the town, is avoided in the future?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to tell the honourable member, who waited patiently for my arrival, that the disaster was controlled very quickly by turning off a valve. A single valve corrected the situation.

To assure the honourable member that this type of upset will not occur again, my staff are more than pleased, and are moving now, to assist the town of Fort Frances with a co-ordinated emergency response program so that if there are other occasions of the same type that cannot be avoided, we will assist the town to prepare itself in a way similar to that of my own community, which has had an emergency response group in place for a great number of years now. I would urge the town of Fort Frances to do the same thing, and we will assist it. I give the member that assurance.

10:10 a.m.

Mr. Foulds: Is the minister not aware that the situation was not controlled by the simple turning off of a valve? Turning off the valve prevented any further expulsion of dangerous chlorine gas, but there was the expulsion of chlorine gas and it did temporarily threaten a certain part of the town.

Will the minister ensure that money is made available to the community through his ministry and that of the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) to make sure the kind of equipment needed is available, so that all the responsible authorities -- the fire department, the police department and so on -- can be on one frequency instead of different frequencies? Will he assure us that his ministry will permanently monitor that plant, which uses between 60 and 70 tons of chlorine at a time and is right in the middle of the town, and monitor it so that it will be virtually foolproof?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I cannot speak on behalf of my colleague the Solicitor General, but I want to reiterate the assurance I gave that my staff are prepared to move into Fort Frances, and have already, to assist the town officials with the response I spoke of earlier. I am not, at this point, prepared to commit large sums of money to any co-ordinated plan because a great amount of the money that perhaps would be expended is a municipal responsibility.

I can assure the member that we are as concerned as he is. When I indicated the problem was controlled as a direct result of turning off the valve, what I meant to imply was that, had someone reacted more quickly, perhaps the problem that developed with respect to the chlorine gas cloud could have been minimized or kept to an absolutely harmless level.

We will move into that community. We are as concerned as the member is and we intend to take the necessary steps in co-operation with local officials and with industry to make sure this type of thing does not happen again. I cannot give the member a guarantee that it will not, because we live in the real world where occasionally these upsets occur, but we can minimize them. We intend to do that to the extent that is humanly possible.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary or a new question?

Mr. Foulds: No, no, a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Do not rush me. This is a nice early morning, and things are unfolding as they should on a Saturday morning.

Mr. Speaker: Friday.

Mr. Foulds: On a Friday morning. I look with anticipation to the weekends. Was the minister not aware or did his officials not make him aware that there was one ton of chlorine still left in that part of the system after the valves were shut off? It was in that part of the system and was still to be expelled. Could he take the step in his investigation to find out why, apparently, there was nobody in the mill designated to notify the proper authorities, the fire chief in this case, of any such emergency situation?

In fact, the fire chief found out almost by accident because he happened to be looking out of his window and saw the cloud of chlorine gas. One of the employees who had been evacuated from the mill, on his own initiative and without any instructions from superior officers, ran across the street to tell the fire chief. Surely to goodness there has to be a more regularized form of responsibility when such incidents occur, so that the proper authorities are notified and they can take the action that is necessary.

I want to say I agree that the fire chief in this situation did everything that was humanly possible.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: We are investigating the situation. At this point I cannot respond to the question the member raises with respect to how the staff went into action to turn off the valve, which stopped the chlorine gas leak. I can give the member the assurance that our investigation will include recommendations. Incorporated with and outlined in those particular regulations will be a series of steps that will include ways and means by which we can suggest to the company a control system that we hope will avoid that situation in the future.

Chlorine gas is an extremely deadly gaseous fluid, as the member knows. In a controlled form it is one of the chemicals we do require, as the member is no doubt aware, but it must be dealt with in a very safe and careful fashion. We intend to see that is done.

HOSPITAL BEDS

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Health (Mr. Norton) and of the Premier (Mr. Davis), I have a question for the Deputy Premier.

Can the Deputy Premier explain why, a full two and a half years after the announcement of the EldCap program, which was to put into place chronic care beds associated with small community hospitals in northern Ontario, not a single bed has yet been established although there have been five approvals?

Are the minister and his ministry not aware of the crying need for both home care in small communities and chronic care beds associated with hospitals in small communities, so that communities such as those that have received approvals and communities such as Chapleau and Nipigon can get those chronic care and extended care beds as quickly as possible?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that I was not considered really a minister of substance at the opening here, maybe I could refer that question to a minister of substance, the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier), who would be delighted to share that information since it happens to be his program.

I know the honourable member would like to have some answers. May I introduce the Minister of Northern Affairs to him.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Thank you very much, Deputy Premier.

Mr. Speaker, if I might answer the honourable member's question, I would point out to him that this program was designed in northern Ontario, as he well knows, for northern Ontario needs. It is special and unique to northern Ontario. We have approved five sites at the present time.

The member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) is one of the great proponents and one of the strongest supporters of this program, which will see 20 extended care beds attached to an existing hospital. The program is unique not only in Ontario but in Canada. We are breaking new ground.

The planning process is in place, the funds are available and we have advanced literally hundreds of thousands of dollars for the planning process that is going on in those five hospital boards now. It is well down the road, and I hope to turn the sod for at least four of them this spring. If the honourable members are around, I would ask them to join me because it is a very exciting program, one that is on track and moving ahead.

The planning process is a unique one. We are breaking new ground. In some instances, we are practically building a new hospital. We have to add extra nursing facilities and enlarge the kitchen, the laundry and the electrical system. All these things have to be brought into the planning process.

The excitement in northern Ontario is very real. When we have these five going, we will get on with it and we will have about another 10 or 12 to do. Then I am sure the member will join us in a very exciting program.

Mr. Foulds: The minister is aware that not only is the excitement great but so is the anticipation because he has not been able to deliver on the promise of 1982.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Foulds: Is he aware that in the Nipigon hospital, as my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon knows so well, at least 13 of the 23 active treatment beds have been used by patients who need long-term care? Is he also aware that in Chapleau 60 per cent of the active treatment beds are occupied by long-term patients who have no other place to go?

Therefore, can I not urge the minister, and would he not make a commitment, not merely to turn the sod this spring but to get those beds in place, not merely in the five communities to which he has made commitments but in every small northern community that requires such beds?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I am sure the member is aware that when we announced the program, we announced it would be a five-year program. We allocated $25 million to $30 million over a five-year period to put this program in place.

As I said earlier, the planning process is moving ahead as rapidly as possible, but the program is unique and requires a lot of input not only from the hospital but also the municipality and the Ministry of Health.

With regard to Chapleau, I met that group just about two weeks ago and accepted its formal application. I told them I would be back early in the new year with a firm and positive decision.

Mr. Foulds: My colleague the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) reminds me that the minister finally accepted the application from Chapleau, although it made the application a considerable time ago, after bureaucratic delays in his ministry and in the Ministry of Health had prevented the application from being accepted.

10:20 a.m.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Foulds: Can the minister tell me why the hospital in Atikokan has received approval three times but has not yet been able to proceed with the beds? Can the minister explain why a government with a majority such as it has cannot implement such a program in a four-year period? After two and a half years of planning, can he tell me why he still does not have a bed in place? He is waiting until the election is called to capitalize on it for political purposes.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I point out to the member for Algoma that if he would write to me and come to talk to me about his problems, I would be glad to do so. Instead, he chooses to write letters to the Sault Ste. Marie Star. He gets a lot of publicity up there, but he never writes me or comes in to see me.

Mr. Wildman: I have raised it in the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: He is not like the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes). The process is in place. It is an exciting program and one that is suited for northern Ontario. The honourable member knows it, and I know it. When it is in place, he will be the first one to cheer about it.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I would point out to the minister that I have raised it a number of times with him. Anyway, I have a question.

Mr. Speaker: I am certainly glad to hear that. The member for Algoma with a new question.

EXPOSURE TO TOXIC CHEMICALS

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour on a very serious problem. It relates to baby Timothy Post, who is severely handicapped. It has been suggested that his problems are related to his mother's exposure to toxic chemicals during her pregnancy when she was working at English Plastics in Brampton.

Can the minister explain why his ministry failed to do any air monitoring at this plant, which uses extremely toxic substances such as polyvinyl chlorides, styrene and acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene, which are all possible causes of birth defects? Other toxic solvents, such as methylene chloride, trichloroethylene and benzene, are in use daily. These last solvents have led workers to complain of nausea and headaches.

Why did the ministry never do any air monitoring in a plastic plant using these kinds of substances?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the honourable member that it is a very serious situation. I certainly feel for the mother and the family. It has not been definitely established that there is a relationship; however, when there is doubt, there obviously has to be follow-up and study. This is what is being done.

In direct response to the member, there have been visits to that plant, but on those visits there was not felt to be a problem as far as the air was concerned. The ventilation and so on appeared to be normal, and -- I think this is important -- there were no complaints from the workers or from the health and safety committee.

I would like to follow through a bit, and this might take a little longer than usual, but I hope it will throw some light on this situation.

On April 4, 1984, a telephone call was received by our industrial safety branch from --

Mr. McClellan: This is becoming a statement. The minister should not go on too long.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: If you wish, I will sit down.

Mr. Martel: I thought we might take time out.

Mr. Speaker: It was suggested that in the interest of time, it might more properly be considered a statement. However, if the members want to --

Mr. Wildman: We could revert to statements.

Mr. Speaker: No.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am trying to answer the question in a complete way. As I said at the outset, it is a serious matter and one about which I do not want to be frivolous in any way.

Let us go back to April 4, 1984. A telephone call was received by our industrial safety branch from a gentleman who identified himself as the grandfather of the child. He did not make a complaint, but he inquired as to whether there had been any charges or orders laid against the firm. That information was provided, and the branch felt that a further visit, other than the normal visits that had gone on in the past, should be made. That was done, and at the time there were no complaints from the workers and no problem as far as ventilation was concerned. As a result, no air sampling was done.

Mr. Wildman: We are aware of complaints among workers in this unorganized plant prior to April 1984. Even if the minister maintains the position that air monitoring would be done only if there were complaints from unorganized workers, who may feel vulnerable, after the baby's grandfather raised the concerns and the ministry became aware of baby Timothy Post's multiple handicaps -- mental retardation, impaired eyesight and muscle control, serious problems with digestion, seizures and so on -- why did it not do any air monitoring when it went into the plant?

How could the ministry come to the conclusion, as stated in its report, that "No significant amount of fume was noted on the day of the visit"? How could the ministry say that if it had not done any air sampling? Is it not the case that the ministry simply accepted management's position that "natural ventilation and the heat at which moulding machines operate ensure that there are no dangerous fumes"? Why did the ministry representatives themselves not confirm management's position?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I asked that question myself and I obtained the information, including the report of that particular visit. Incidentally, the report described the process in detail; it listed the materials used and indicated the plant was naturally ventilated and the forming ovens and spray booths were locally exhausted. No significant amount of fume was noted on the day of the visit by the physician from the health branch. There were about 30 employees in the plant who worked in two shifts, and no health complaints had been received.

I want to make a couple of points of a general nature. I realize the member is trying to say there was a fear of reprisals in an unorganized plant. There are two points to be made. First of all, complaints can be made in an anonymous way --

Mr. McClellan: The minister does not have the right to go on and on.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am just trying to be helpful. I will be happy to sit down.

Mr. Speaker: Carry on.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Complaints can be made in an anonymous manner, and they are always followed up. Further, we have just finished printing a booklet in seven different languages, which will be widely distributed in work places. It addresses the very matter of reprisals, and we think it will help the problem the member justly points out. There is a problem and a feeling about reprisals and we want to address that.

PROVINCE OF ONTARIO SAVINGS OFFICE

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Revenue. The minister will be aware of statements made by the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) and Treasury officials indicating the government of Ontario is considering selling off the Province of Ontario Savings Office. I want to ask the minister responsible for the savings office whether that is the policy and the intention of the ministry.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I thank the honourable member for the question. I have to say I respect all the members of the New Democratic Party for being here today to ask questions of all the ministers here to answer them. It is unfortunate the official opposition members are not here to function as they should as critics of this government.

The answer to my friend's question is no.

10:30 a.m.

Mr. Philip: Will the minister confirm that it is his policy that the savings offices do not advertise and do not provide the same services as other banks and trust companies? Will he confirm that he has deliberately allowed the services to deteriorate to the point where the deposits have dropped off substantially in the last year? In one fiscal year alone, the surplus is down to $2.5 million from $4.1 million.

Is it not the minister's policy that he is deliberately destroying these offices so he can eventually justify what the Treasurer has stated is his intention, namely, the selling-off of these offices which are making a profit for the taxpayers?

Hon. Mr. Gregory: The honourable member seems to be attributing a statement to the Treasurer that I am not aware of. It is not the policy of my ministry to take the actions the member is suggesting. While it is true the deposits in POSO, as we call it, have not been as heavy, I attribute this to the additional services that have been offered recently by the various trust companies.

Historically, the Province of Ontario Savings Office has been the one function of government where citizens can deposit money at an interest rate higher than is normally offered. There have been certain additional services offered by trust companies lately that have, it is true, attracted to the trust companies certain money that would normally have gone to POSO. However, it is not the policy of my ministry to diminish that function in any way.

ONTARIO WASTE MANAGEMENT CORP.

Mr. Barlow: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. On Monday or Tuesday of this week, I believe, the Ontario Waste Management Corp. announced the funding of $75,000 to intervener groups. I know we discussed this during consideration of the ministry's estimates, but I wonder whether it is going to be a regular practice within the ministry to fund intervener groups, not only in this matter but also on other topics as they develop over the years.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question raised by the honourable member. The precedent has been set with respect to the Ontario Waste Management Corp. where moneys have been provided for the intervention that we feel is necessary in the case of establishing a safe and adequate liquid industrial waste site. There was one other situation where intervener funding was allowed, and that was with respect to the hearings related to the changes in regulation for the destruction of polychlorinated biphenyls.

Those are the two instances either directly or indirectly associated with my ministry where intervener funding has been allowed. There is no intention at the present time to expand that to other undertakings under my ministry, such as environmental assessments or any of the reviews that are carried out under the Environmental Protection Act.

I do not know whether the member's question implied that he was in favour of or opposed to that type of intervener funding, but I want to assure him that we are studying the larger question to determine whether there is an appropriate role for intervener funding to play in other situations. At the moment, it is limited to two, the Ontario Waste Management Corp. and the regulatory reform on PCBs.

SOCIAL WORKERS LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. McClellan: It is so nice in here without the official opposition to clutter things up.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour with respect to the labour dispute at the Metropolitan Toronto Association for the Mentally Retarded.

I am sure the minister will share the concern we have raised in the past about this strike, which is affecting many hundreds of mentally retarded clients of the MTAMR. I want to ask the Minister of Labour whether he will use his good offices and the services of his mediator to bring the two parties back together at the bargaining table as quickly as possible.

From discussions with his mediator, does the minister have the same sense that I do, that management is not aware the union changed its bargaining position as long ago as two weeks, that management does not appear to be aware of the union's current offer and that management does not appear to have clearly communicated its latest position on the wage scale? Communications were identified in the Woods Gordon report as one of the major management problems in this agency, and I am beginning to believe that.

Will the minister try to get his mediator to get these people to sit down together?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what is responsible for the mood here this morning, but the questions have been very constructive.

Interjections.

Mr. Martel: Just give me the next question. I want to get back to normal.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I knew it was too good to last.

The honourable member raises an excellent point, and it is one that has been disturbing. I agree with him. I have sensed from my conversations that there is a more conciliatory mood out there, and that is an encouraging sign. In direct response to his question, yes, we are trying to get the parties back to the bargaining table and we are optimistic we will be able to do so very shortly.

In that respect, the assistant deputy minister of the industrial relations division for my ministry, Vic Pathe, will be holding, for want of a better word, premediation meetings early next week with both parties. He has already made arrangements to meet with representatives -- I should stress that; not with both parties -- of the two parties in an effort to set up the resumption of mediation meetings. I know progress has been made in that respect.

Mr. McClellan: I want to ask the Minister of Labour a question about one of the issues in the dispute, and that is management's proposal to have two wage scales, one wage scale for current employees and a second wage scale for new or future employees.

I wonder whether the minister will look at this proposal from the perspective of whether two wage scales, one at a high rate and one at a lower rate, are not going to lead to violations of our laws with respect to equal pay for equal work. It seems to me, and I am sure the minister will agree, that if there are two wage scales, one higher than the other, future employees are put into a position that will provide them with challenges under the equal pay for equal work laws.

Will the minister review this issue before his mediation sessions with management and, quite frankly, advise the management in this dispute whether they want to find themselves in a position of conflict with our equal pay legislation?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: As I have said before, I do not make a practice of commenting on the particular stances of the respective parties. However, the member has cast a new light on a circumstance. I must admit it is one I had not thought of. There is a question there concerning the equal pay laws, and yes, I will definitely have to look at something like that.

HYDRO INSURANCE

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy. The minister will no doubt remember that I raised an issue in the estimates that took both him and Ontario Hydro by surprise. Now that he has had time to look into the matter, can he tell the House whether he has examined the 18 court cases in which Hydro is the defendant against insurance companies, and can he tell the House why such a large number of court cases is pending and why Hydro is in a position where it has to go to court to settle insurance cases that individuals and citizens are able to settle out of court?

10:40 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member is quite correct; he did raise the issue. But he did not raise it with me; he raised it with the chairman and president of Ontario Hydro. I cannot report to the member in any detail on the substance of his question. I will be glad, if he wishes, to take it as notice to provide him with that detail. Having posed the question to the executive of Hydro, I assume they will be providing him with the answer. If that is not forthcoming shortly, I will be glad to try to expedite the answer for the member.

Mr. Di Santo: I am surprised at the minister's answer, because this implies some policy angles that are the responsibility of the minister. If such a high number of insurance companies, 18, refuses to pay Hydro for damages that in many instances are related to significant event occurrences and if only one case has been settled out of court, is there not a possibility that the insurance companies are refusing to pay because they think there is a responsibility on the part of Ontario Hydro, in terms of negligence or otherwise?

Is it not the minister's responsibility to tell the House, first, why there are so many cases outstanding; second, the reason for so many cases; third, how many cases relate to significant events; and fourth, how many cases in any given year have been settled out of court?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: I can only comment on the safety record of Ontario Hydro. I think the member will agree the utility's safety record has been excellent.

The member has touched on rather a difficult issue in that some of these matters are before the courts. It presents me with some difficulty, as it would the Hydro executive, to comment on them when they are before the courts. I can only reiterate to the member that these are questions of detail. They are matters arising between employees of Ontario Hydro and the utility itself. My responsibility to this House is to report on the activities of that utility, in terms of its financial responsibility and other matters related to the supply and service of electricity in Ontario.

Mr. Di Santo: The minister must understand, although there are cases before the courts, that one of the cases I am referring to is the case that was discontinued on June 24, 1984. I am asking the question because there might very well be a situation where Ontario Hydro is losing millions of dollars because of those accidents. If there is a responsibility, I think it is the minister's responsibility to find out the reason it happens in so many cases. The minister is hiding behind the court cases. I asked him to comment on cases that have been dropped by Ontario Hydro.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: The member is asking me for details of cases with which I am not familiar. If he would give me the specifics, I will be glad to pursue those matters with Ontario Hydro. Once again, because they are matters relating to the day-to-day operations of that utility, they are not matters I would generally report to this House.

VOLUNTEER BOARDS

Mr. Sheppard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Community and Social Services a question. There was a report in the Toronto Star on November 22 that a prominent labour leader was demanding that the minister abolish all voluntary boards and directorates. I am very concerned because in my riding we have the Port Hope-Cobourg association for the mentally retarded. I certainly would not want that kind of board to be abolished. Has the minister met with this labour leader who was mentioned in the Toronto Star on November 22?

An hon. member: Name him.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, since someone says the member should name the labour leader, I think it is well known that it is Mr. Majesky, the president of the Labour Council of Metropolitan Toronto, who is going to storm into my office and get me to abolish volunteer boards. He has not shown up yet.

On a very serious note, I regard some of the utterances of Mr. Majesky -- and I hope they were made in a spirit of exuberance rather than in a spirit of reality -- as very detrimental to some of the most progressive things in Ontario. One of the great strengths in this province is the fact that most social services, exclusive of direct income maintenance, are provided and delivered by some 1,900 transfer agencies, 99 per cent of which are operated and supervised by volunteer boards.

Members will recall that during the discussions and debates on Bill 77, both in standing committee and in committee of the whole in this House, considerable interest was focused by the two other parties on the protection and enhancement of volunteer boards, most specifically last spring. While it was one thing to be able to move in on a children's aid society because it was a mandated service, none the less there should be protections and a different approach towards the volunteer agencies because of their volunteer boards.

I do not agree that volunteer boards, as mentioned in that article, are "mere window dressing." I think that is a very unfortunate description. Volunteer boards are composed of community leaders. They are community leaders because they are on those boards. They bring to those boards a community responsibility and a respect for the individual that a government or any type of collective board simply cannot do. As long as I am minister, the full resources of this ministry will be devoted to enhancing volunteer boards not only in the area of the developmentally handicapped but also in the areas of all agencies delivering social services.

IMMIGRATION

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Fish) I would like to put a question to the Deputy Premier.

The Deputy Premier is aware, I am sure -- and I am sure he is not going to hide behind the shoulders of the Minister of Citizenship and Culture in answering this question -- that the federal government in its economic statement a week and a half ago increased the fees for applications for citizenship from $8 to $25 for minors and from $15 to $40 for adults. For minors the increase is 213 per cent and for adults it is 166 per cent. I am sure the minister also knows that more than 50 per cent of the immigrants who come to Canada come to and stay in Ontario.

On the basis of that information, what protests, if any, has the Deputy Premier made on behalf of his government to the Conservative government in Ottawa regarding these exorbitant increases?

10:50 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I would agree with my honourable friend that a very high percentage of those who come to Canada choose Ontario as their residence. Indeed, Ontario has benefited greatly over the years from large numbers of people who have come from many lands to establish themselves here. The member and I exchanged questions and comments on this subject when I had the responsibility of my colleague in this whole area of newcomer integration and the importance that multiculturalism plays in developing the lifestyle of our area.

I must admit I have not had a recent conversation with my colleague on the question of the impact of that statement on the ability of our newcomers to acquire their full citizenship, but I will follow up on this question to ascertain what the full implications are.

Speaking generally, as much as we could, I think we would want to facilitate the desire on the part of so many people to acquire their Canadian citizenship, but I lack some of the detail about any official response which may have gone from my colleague to either the federal minister or her other counterpart in Ottawa.

Mr. Grande: If there is a response from this government, I am not aware of it. I am wondering whether Brian Mulroney has put a gag on this government, as well as the federal ministers in Ottawa.

However, given the fact that the minister is not aware of any response, can the minister, as the second in line in power in this province right now, make it known to the federal government today that these increases which are to become effective in April or May of next year should be terminated, that there should not be any increases? Otherwise, the work everyone in this province has been doing for many years, including the Deputy Premier as the former Minister of Culture and Recreation, to encourage our immigrants to become Canadian citizens, will have been in vain and these exorbitant increases will become a monetary obstacle for them.

Will the minister say to Brian Mulroney that even though immigrants do not tend to vote for Conservatives, none the less he should not be punishing them because of that fact?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I will be allowed to comment on three matters raised by my honourable friend. The results of September 4 confirmed that Canadians from all backgrounds supported my national leader and his party. Let there be no question about that. I would want to underline that those who have sought their opportunities in this country, coming as they do from so many lands and who know the advantages of freedom of expression and enterprise, would be very comfortable in a political party headed by Brian Mulroney, now the Prime Minister of Canada. That point should be made quite clear.

Second, in the spirit of that question, that same national leader would be the last one to want to mug anybody from that standpoint or put any damper on expression. I want the member to realize that he heads a party which places a great deal of emphasis on consultation and on wanting to have the expression of all points of view. To know this, one only has to see the popularity which he now enjoys from all parts of Canada and in those parts of Canada which have large representations of new Canadians.

This government, headed by the member for Brampton (Mr. Davis), and that government, headed by Brian Mulroney, would not want to put anything in the way of those wanting to enjoy full citizenship in this country. We will express those sentiments from time to time in those appropriate places, encouraged as we are by the member's interest in the welfare of our national party.

MORGENTALER TRIAL

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney General. I have had a number of constituents recently who are very interested in the Morgentaler case and they were wondering when the Attorney General is going to be coming down with his decision of whether he is going to appeal.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, my senior criminal law advisers have been working very hard on this matter. It is one of the most important and difficult decisions the ministry has faced. I have not yet received a recommendation from my senior law officers. I expect this recommendation to be forthcoming within a few days.

INJURED WORKER

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour, and I do not raise these matters in the House very frequently. It involves a constituent who is an injured worker. He will lose his home in the next two weeks. I will give the minister the man's claim number. It is 8861830.

This matter has gone to all levels of appeal. The man has received a disability allowance since 1976 at 45 per cent. He only started to run into financial difficulties because of the strike in Sudbury and, ultimately, the lengthy layoff during which he lost his confectionery. In view of these points, will the minister intervene to ensure that he does not lose his home in the next couple of weeks for tax arrears and a mortgage? On that 45 per cent disability allowance, the compensation board has turned him down at all levels and will watch him lose his home.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am at a disadvantage because I do not know the full details, nor do I have the file. As the member knows, there are thousands upon thousands of files within the Workers' Compensation Board.

The member opposite has brought other individual cases to my attention in the past. I think he will agree that in each case I have followed up accordingly. In one case I think we were quite successful in reaching a happy resolution for everybody concerned. Without making any commitments whatsoever, other than that I will be pleased to look into it, I will follow up accordingly.

Mr. Martel: What really is difficult to understand in these commutations is the judgements made by some people at the board. For example, they say a commutation would not be a rehabilitation measure.

The man and his family are having great difficulty. They are going to lose a home that he personally built because somebody at the board decided this would not help him. I wonder what it is going to do to the man if he loses his home. Is that not a rehabilitative measure -- to guarantee that the board takes half and computes it? I will give the minister the whole file so that he will know the submission made by the community legal clinic in Sudbury on the man's behalf. I do not think we can afford this.

Would the minister have someone review the whole policy on commutation? I think it is nuts.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: To answer the last question first, we have Bill 101 in the Legislature right at this time.

Mr. Martel: Right, and it does not do a thing.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Hear me out, please. There are several features in that, including a new corporate board that will be able to study and look at policies and procedures. That corporate board will have representation from various walks of life -- from the injured workers, the medical community, management, and so on. I am very optimistic about the value and eventual productive steps that will be taken by that corporate board because there will be a variety of interests represented on it. I believe the opportunity will be there to examine these problems in greater detail and perhaps greater dedication than at the present time.

Will I look at the file? Yes. I have already given that commitment in my first response.

WELFARE RECIPIENTS

Mr. Watson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. My concern relates to who has the access to people who are on welfare in this province.

In the town of Wallaceburg, which is a part of the county of Kent, certain councillors have requested that they be allowed to see the lists of those receiving welfare in their community. Is this possible? If it is, how do they go about it?

11 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, this area is serviced by a county unit. The county administrator of social assistance has the records. They are certainly available to the county council. They are not available to individual municipalities or to individual councillors. This matter has been going on for some time. I do not know why somebody in Wallaceburg wants to play Jim Rockford, private eye.

We have said on two occasions that Wallaceburg is a unique area in the province. There is no resident of Wallaceburg who is employable and also receiving social assistance. It is unique in the province, but for some peculiar reason there is a doubter on the local council.

The county council has looked at this matter and has voted that it is not going to begin a process of sharing confidential information with a member municipality or a member of its council. It is one thing to share statistics, trends, problems and needs, but it is another to begin giving addresses and names and allowing people to have a look.

I say to those in Wallaceburg who are so interested, if they have reason to believe there is something so extraordinary going on that they should have the right to the information, then they should write to the minister and state their case. They still will not see the information, but the minister will look into their allegation. I hope this ends the matter, because I have written to the council of Wallaceburg on two occasions to say this is not going to happen. I am not going to keep on spending 32 cents to tell them what the law is.

WATER RENTALS

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. Is he aware that Ontario Hydro pays into the consolidated revenue fund something in the order of $100 million by way of water rentals on a horsepower basis? Will he join with his colleagues the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) and the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Baetz) to allocate the water rentals generated on the Nipigon River system and dedicate them to the Nipigon parkway commission in the same way as he does for the Niagara Parks Commission to look after that beautiful attraction on the Niagara River?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister of Northern Affairs tells me we have a long and strong record of supporting that area, with or without the water rentals being shared in that way.

I would remind the member that I increased the water rental charges very dramatically in my budget.

Mr. Stokes: About 70 per cent.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is correct. That additional increase, however, did not accrue to the Niagara Parks Commission either. We did not have a great increase of moneys going to one and not the other; rather, we maintained the status quo with respect to the commissions.

Since both areas seem to be thriving, I do not see any need to use the water rentals in that way. However, both my colleague and the next member, Mr. Files, have raised the importance of that enterprise to me, and I have told Mr. Files I would be delighted to consider other ways to provide additional financial support to that great area.

Mr. Stokes: In the interests of fair play and uniformity, why does the Treasurer not move now and enhance his position vis-à-vis other aspirants to the leadership? Why does he not make the announcement now that he is prepared to do something real and significant to broaden the economic base by way of tourism along the Lake Nipigon watershed and treat us in the same way as he does the Niagara Parks Commission?

It is my understanding he gives that commission about $2.7 million a year. As a result of the three hydro generating stations, I know the water rentals on the Lake Nipigon watershed would be in excess of $1 million. If the minister did that, he would be doing everybody in northern Ontario a favour, even Mr. Files, whoever he might be.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As someone who spent some time during the summer vacationing in the north --

Mr. Martel: He went last weekend.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It was long before last weekend. I know a little about tourism in the area because I spent a great deal of time with the North of Superior Travel Association. I think we have made large gains in the area. All my friends in the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association would agree we have made great strides in the area.

I had occasion to meet many people in that area last week and we agreed there were certain things that could be done in tourism, and these have been done. I suggest it would be hard even for the honourable member to think of things that might be done to help tourism in the area that my colleague the Minister of Northern Affairs --

Mr. Martel: They just turned the camera off the minister.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That completes my answer then.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Stokes: He said two weeks ago he thought it was a fascinating concept.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He shared that with me, as has Mr. Files. We agree it is a fascinating concept. All the people in the area have indicated --

Mr. Stokes: The minister must not try to play political games with me.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Of course, the member for Lake Nipigon would not be playing a political game this morning. I got quite a lesson in the political games the member has succeeded in playing. I applaud his success in that over the years.

However, the file will be closed shortly.

MOTION

COMMITTEE SCHEDULE

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the subcommittee on communications with the public of the select committee on the Ombudsman be authorized to meet on the afternoon of Tuesday, November 27, 1984.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 43, An Act to amend the Off-Road Vehicles Act;

Bill 58, An Act to amend certain Acts related to Payments in Lieu of Taxes to Municipalities;

Bill 91, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Sudbury Act;

Bill 129, An Act to amend the Assessment Act;

Bill 131, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act.

11:10 a.m.

MARQUIS VIDEO CORPORATION ACT

Mr. Cousens moved second reading of Bill Pr2, An Act to revive Marquis Video Corporation.

Motion agreed to.