role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

October 24, 1977

31st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L028 - Mon 24 Oct 1977 / Lun 24 oct 1977

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

LAYOFF OF NICKEL WORKERS

ORAL QUESTIONS

PREMIER’S VISIT TO JAPAN

LAYOFF OF NICKEL WORKERS

OHC LAND SALES

LOSS OF DOCTORS

EDWARDSBURGH LAND ASSEMBLY

JAILING OF WOMEN

OTTAWA BOARD OF CONTROL

NURSES’ DISPUTE

SKYWAY TOLLS

PROPERTY TAXATION

CAS BUDGETS

WINTARIO FUNDS

TTC FUNDING

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AND COMMERCIAL RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (CONTINUED)

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it’s an inquiry more than a point of order, but I’ll leave it to your judgement, sir, because I think it’s important.

It appears that the resources development committee and the social development committee have decided to sit today, the former in order to deal with the Labour estimates. I don’t want to get involved in a big battle over it, but my understanding of the way in which the structure was established was that there were certain time-frames when committees would be able to sit and that they could or could not sit in accordance with those time-frames, established by the panel of chairmen and by the House leaders.

I think we might as well get it straight right away whether it’s within the competence of the committee to determine whether it will not sit at any time other than those times established. I find it most inconvenient to arrive in my office in the morning and discover that the committee, in all good faith, has decided not to sit when it was intended to sit and will sit at some other time which it deems to be appropriate but which may not be appropriate in accordance with other committees that have already been granted the power to sit at those times.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I’m sorry that you’re being troubled with this housekeeping matter, but may I speak to it?

As you perhaps know, sir, we’ve left the matter of committee meetings to the panel of chairmen to sort out against the background of a general timetable which had the standing committee on social development meeting on a Monday afternoon and the standing committee on resources development meeting on Monday evening, along with other allotted times set out in that schedule.

It became obvious, near the end of last week -- and this information was not just communicated this morning, it was communicated near the end of last week -- that the Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson) was having some problems meeting the Monday evening

schedule and we felt that the committee itself could work out its own details. I was advised that the standing committee, for this day only -- just for today -- was asking if it could meet this afternoon in order that we wouldn’t lose much-needed time for the consideration of these spending estimates.

Through some inadvertence, for which I must accept some responsibility, the notice that should have been in the order paper today regarding the meeting of the standing committee on social development didn’t appear, although it’s been generally known for some time that this was the afternoon, and there was some confusion with respect to procedural affairs.

However, we felt we had come, among the various parties, to a very satisfactory conclusion for today only that this afternoon, following the question period, the standing committee on resources development would meet to continue its review of the Labour estimates, and the standing committee on social development would meet this afternoon to start the estimates of Community and Social Services.

The procedural affairs committee, I understand, is meeting in room 228 simply to do some organizational work, so that can go on; tonight would be general government carrying on with the Treasurer; and starting tomorrow we would get back to the regularly understood timetable.

I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused, but we felt, really, that the House leaders would best leave committee work to the panel of chairmen to work out the details.

Mr. Deans: On the matter, if I may, sir -- just to clear it up from my point of view -- I, first of all, don’t require an apology. I didn’t expect that anyone was to blame for it and didn’t say so.

Hon. Mr. Welch: We had lunch together. Why didn’t you mention it at lunch?

Mr. Deans: Because I didn’t know at lunch.

Hon. Mr. Welch: If you had been here on Friday, you would have known.

Mr. Deans: Yes, that’s fine. I was here Friday. I was here to hear the Premier’s (Mr. Davis) disgusting --

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. Will the member for Wentworth take his seat?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Stop bothering the House. Stop using the time of the House.

Mr. Deans: It wasn’t brought to our attention.

Mr. Speaker: This change, for this Monday only, was brought to my attention last week and I just assumed everybody who was involved was made aware of it. It doesn’t require a debate in this House. We have a panel for the express purpose of looking after the scheduling of committees and I am sure the matter is well in hand.

Mr. Havrot: The member doesn’t know what is going on; stick around.

Mr. Deans: I was here. I listened to the Premier’s disgusting remarks on Friday. Maybe you didn’t hear them.

Mr. Speaker: Order, will the member for Wentworth come to order? That matter is closed.

Mr. Nixon: That matter of disgusting remarks -- I thought it would be withdrawn.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That was unparliamentary, Mr. Speaker. Really, if I were one to take offence readily, I would ask the hon. member for Wentworth to withdraw those observations --

Mr. Deans: Then ask; don’t worry, ask.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- but knowing the contest in which he is engaged, and that he is feeling the heat a little bit, I will understand and not do it. I have been through it and I know what it does to the metabolism. It is sometimes upsetting.

Mr. Cassidy: That is patronizing.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, the member for Ottawa Centre is involved in the same process.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

LAYOFF OF NICKEL WORKERS

Hon. Mr. Davis: As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, it was my intention to make a few remarks at the end of the special debate on the announced layoffs at Inco in Sudbury, but given the continuing interest and concern about this matter I would like to make a brief statement at this time.

Let me say in the beginning that I don’t for one minute question the concern that prevails in all quarters of this House as a result of the Inco announcement, and I recognize that there are and will be genuine differences of opinion as to how we in Ontario should meet this situation. I can even understand the desire of the NDP to bring out of the closet, where it has been well concealed in months past, its fervent desire to nationalize our resource industries.

None of these circumstances in itself is overly discouraging. But I must confess, Mr. Speaker, that if the special debate was intended as a means of dealing realistically and constructively with a serious situation, the results have been both disappointing and discouraging. For, unfortunately, as is all too often the case in the face of difficult circumstances, too much time is devoted to political gamesmanship or, indeed, blamesmanship, and all too little in offering practical suggestions that would help to alleviate, if not overcome, the problems before us.

In all quarters, and I must confess, at all levels of government, people seem to want to devote their time to pointing their finger at somebody else as having been the cause of the problem, while refusing to look in a realistic fashion at the circumstances underlying the situation.

What makes it worse, in my opinion, is the tendency to advocate sweeping courses of action, which are rolled out so easily but which would be so difficult if not downright impractical to apply. Unfortunately, those notions only feed the considerable emotionalism that already exists in a community such as Sudbury at a time like this and, to a considerable extent, further the sense of despair which inevitably accompanies an announcement of a large-scale layoff of this kind.

It is not my intention today, or at any time in the future, to indulge in such an exercise. We are going to deal adequately with the immediate situation, and with other economic difficulties that will arise in the future, only if we approach it, first, with a sense of reality; second, with proposals that are constructive and practical; and, finally, with a maintained sense of confidence in our own abilities and our own long-term future.

It strikes me as rather ironic that, during a period when I hear increased calls for less government interference in the business community, there should be a rush from both opposition parties for massive government intervention the moment that a problem arises. There are also exaggerated notions as to what a provincial government in Canada can do at a time like this and this only exacerbates the situation. For while it may sound negative to some, there must surely be some kind of appreciation of the things that this government cannot do, despite its considerable influence and absolute concern about the developments that are taking place.

Firstly, we cannot change the world market situation in respect to the sales of nickel. As much as some would like to blame us for each and every feature of the announced layoff, we do not, for example, control the steel industry of the United States which, primary among the circumstances now facing us, has reduced its demand for nickel in the short term.

Secondly, we cannot remove competition from the international marketplace. As long as nickel sources are going to be found in other parts of the world, there are going to be people willing to develop them and sell the product. If Inco does not choose to be part of that international development, others will and their efforts will show far, far less concern for the Sudbury operations than any undertaken by a Canadian corporation.

Thirdly, we are not in a position, either in terms of good business or in the wise use of public funds, to purchase and stockpile a product for which there is already a surplus supply in this world. Ramifications of that type of policy, spread across the broad front of our economic activity, are surely apparent to all of us.

What we can do, however, is give specific attention to things that can be done to assist the workers and the communities in which they live during the period when production is decreased and unemployment is created. That, in my opinion, is where we should be concentrating our attention. We should start our planning from the knowledge that we have in Sudbury the most efficient plant and work force that exists in the nickel industry today. That should give us confidence, therefore, that when the market conditions improve, Inco will be more than able to gain and hold a major share of that market.

Further, it should give us some sense of hope that the situation we currently face is for the short term.

Fortunately, this province and this country have important social programs and legislation that are in place that give the people affected basic protection during these serious times. Without attempting to document a case, I have in mind, initially, the 16-week notice provided by

an Act passed in this Legislature, the unemployment insurance that will ensure basic income to most of those affected by the layoff and such programs as our health and hospital insurance plan which will protect the affected workers and their families in essential areas of life.

In respect of the helpful steps that can be taken, the ministers who spoke on Friday, in my opinion, set forth some clear and reasonable alternatives, including variations in unemployment insurance arrangements and the provision of job opportunities in other locations. It is in regard to these and all other reasonable possibilities that the meetings involving ministry officials at the federal and provincial level, along with union and company spokesmen, will gather tomorrow in order to explore the various possibilities before us and devise a constructive plan of action.

Later this week, when I have had the benefit of the counsel which will arise from tomorrow’s session, I plan to sit down with the chairman of Inco to explore each and every realistic possibility that can be put into place to alleviate the hardships created by this announced layoff. In addition, as was indicated in Friday’s debate, ministers of this government stand ready to go to Sudbury to talk to those involved and work with them to develop possible courses of action.

I might also say that, if it is the desire of this House, I would be prepared to initiate an appearance before the standing committee on resources development of Inco officials, so that members on all sides of this House will have a complete understanding of the difficulties that company faces, which difficulties are now affecting the company’s employees.

[2:15]

In all of these discussions and debates and activities, it is imperative in my view that we maintain a sense of confidence, both at home and, just as important, abroad, in our ability to rise to a situation of this kind. I said at the opening session last Monday that we know that these are difficult times and it will take a co-operative effort on a national and indeed an international basis in order to find appropriate answers.

The Inco layoffs can be taken as a classic case in point. But surely it is apparent that those who rush to preach doom and gloom or to propose massive government intervention do absolutely nothing to enhance the reputation of Ontario and Canada in respect to future development and investment.

At the same time, it undercuts our ability to maintain within our own people, confidence that we still have a strong and healthy economy which despite the exigencies of the moment, provides us with the kind of opportunities that we need to maintain our standard of living and enhance our quality of life in the future.

So I am urging all members of the House to face up to this situation realistically, to have confidence in our ability to deal with the situation, and let’s give less time to blaming one another for the sake of political expediency and work to meet the situation that lies before us.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PREMIER’S VISIT TO JAPAN

Mr. S. Smith: A question to the Premier regarding the Inco matter. I welcome, by the way, his offer to go to the standing resources development committee, and thank him for that

In view of the Minister of Labour’s (B. Stephenson) statement on Friday that Canadian companies have been frozen out of the Japanese nickel market entirely, will the Premier tell the House if he discussed this problem during his trip to Japan? If so, with whom and with what result?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, there was no specific reference to the nickel industry in my discussions in Japan. We touched upon a number of other industries.

The question of Inco being frozen out of the Japanese market is one way of describing it. I think the other way of describing it is that, as I understand it -- and these are matters that will be clarified in my discussions with the chairman of Inco -- the development in Indonesia actually provided access to the Japanese market in a way that might not otherwise have been available.

I would hope that in my discussions, and some may emerge tomorrow and certainly will on Thursday, I will be able to clarify that to a greater extent for the Leader of the Opposition. I think this is a matter that deserves exploration, I hope, in a constructive sort of way, if the resources standing committee deals with this issue as I have suggested.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: With great respect, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier; merely given the fact that he was undoubtedly aware of the grave difficulties facing the nickel industry, and given the fact it is one of Canada’s and Ontario’s largest and most important industries and the fact that Japan was one of the few countries buying nickel, can he explain why he didn’t even raise the matter of the nickel industry during his much vaunted and touted trip to Japan?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can’t comment on how vaunted the trip to Japan was in the mind of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Nixon: How about touted?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Or touted; I really can’t comment on those two descriptive terms. I can only say to the Leader of the Opposition that in my discussions, which were by and large general in nature, we really were suggesting to the Japanese business community that we would like to sell more of our products from Ontario to Japan; and secondly, we wished to see some joint venture development in the province of Ontario using Japanese technology -- and to a certain extent financing; although, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows full well, the extent of equity financing in Japan is somewhat less than traditionally, it is here in this jurisdiction.

I should also point out to the Leader of the Opposition that while Japan is still making quantities of steel, the fact of the matter remains that their own domestic market is down -- their own internal orders for steel have somewhat diminished, and this is true of their total economy -- and this was one of the reasons some of them are less enthusiastic at the moment about making investments either in this country or in several others.

I also pointed out, during that much vaunted and touted tour, which I found extremely interesting but somewhat tiring, that one of the problems we face is the perception that exists, or lack of understanding, of the political situation in Canada, and partially some of the decisions that have been made.

I would point out to the Leader of the Opposition. and more particularly to the leader of the New Democratic Party, one of the things they have difficulty in understanding in that country -- and if is true in some others -- is the fact that we have a federated state and that there can appear to be nine or 10 economic policies emanating from one country, which is not easy for a country that is a unitary state to understand.

It may come as a great surprise to the leader of the New Democratic Party that one of the areas of concern that was raised, both there and in West Germany, was the concern over the nationalization of the potash industry and whether this reflected on the economic policies of the province of Ontario. I assured them it did not.

Mr. Lewis: I’m glad they are watching socialist government here. It gives me heart.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It is like watching a tarantula.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary which bears on the Premier’s statement but not exactly on the Japanese dimension of it. May I ask it? Thank you, sir.

Given that Inco gave the Premier no advance notice whatsoever, and that he has not yet met with the chairman of Inco, and given that the Premier is going to refer it all to the resources development committee, why then can he not say to Inco, logically and reasonably, as Premier of Ontario, that he and his government will not permit the layoffs to occur at least until there is some --

Mr. Speaker: That is not a supplementary to the original question.

Mr. Lewis: I asked you, Mr. Speaker, if I could ask that -- because it wasn’t directly supplementary.

Hon. B. Stephenson: It wasn’t related to either the question or to the answer.

Mr. Speaker: I had to find out whether it was supplementary, and I couldn’t determine that until the member asked it. I have ruled that it is not supplementary.

Mr. Lewis: Okay, Mr. Speaker. I specifically made that request to tell you it wasn’t supplementary.

Mr. S. Smith: My question is at least an attempt to be supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Again on the matter of the markets in Japan and what we can sell into that market. Considering the statement on Friday by the Minister of Natural Resources that -- I think what he said was -- “the whole nickel market has changed in the last few years,” and he was speaking of the 75 per cent nickel matte which Japan and other countries want, will the Premier explain why Ontario has not kept up with these changes in the market and why he seems to have been so uninformed about the fact that the nickel market has changed in Japan, western Europe and elsewhere?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t pretend to be informed on every subject. I confess that, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, I don’t really pretend to have that all-encompassing knowledge. But I do my best.

I would explain to the Leader of the Opposition that while I don’t have this technical expertise to explain it to him, I am concerned that while certainly we as a government can alter certain policies, one policy I would not want to see altered, while I want us to remain totally competitive, would be a policy that might in the long run affect the economic welfare of Sudbury and its operations for the people in that community.

It is fine for the Leader of the Opposition to suggest as one of his constructive “suggestions” that we “Stop doing business in Guatemala,” even though that plant doesn’t come on stream for a year or so; or “You have no responsibility in Indonesia,” and that is a solution to the problem. But I would also suggest to him that it is important from our standpoint that while we may adjust policies on matters of this kind at any time if it makes sense, one thing I would be very reluctant to do would be to alter a policy that would jeopardize the long-term employment opportunities of the people in Sudbury.

We are faced constantly with a desire which is legitimate on our part to improve the processing here so that more of it is done within this jurisdiction; and the fact remains that in terms of the product they are producing Inco and its product from Sudbury is competitive in the world marketplace --

Mr. S. Smith: Yes, even cheaper than Indonesia.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The truth of the matter is that the world marketplace is not buying. That is one of the practical realities that we face; for which I have profound regrets but which this government, and myself or any minister thereof do not have the power to alter. That is the basic problem facing Inco and the unfortunate workers of Inco situated in Sudbury and Thompson, Manitoba at this precise moment.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Just to establish whether this is a policy that has recently -- in the last four or five days -- been taken up by the government, or whether it’s something it has had in mind for some time, did the Ontario government make any recommendations to the federal government as to our position about nickel tariffs in other countries in order to ensure greater access for Ontario’s nickel in process to manufactured form? If so, what were those recommendations?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Not to my knowledge. I don’t pretend, once again, to be an expert in terms of tariffs, but my understanding is that it is not a question of tariff at this precise moment. Essentially -- and I think if it is the decision of this House to get into a discussion with Inco in the resources development committee, this will emerge -- the basic problem is not that of tariff, thank heavens. It’s not, as faces us in some industries -- and I think this is important to point out -- our own economic situation, lack of productivity and lack of competitiveness that have created the situation.

Mr. Lewis: Not Inco.

Hon. B. Stephenson: It is not.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I say it is not. That is different from some other situations we face. I think it is important for the public to understand that it is something that is in terms of the marketplace, a situation where Inco can compete. They have a productive and efficient system and they have productive and efficient workers. But if people aren’t buying then it’s pretty darn tough to sell. It really is as simple as that. That may be an oversimplification, but that is, I think, the essential problem we face.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary: The Premier has not, in my judgement, adequately answered this question, and I would like to know the answer. Was he aware of the difficulties with Inco before his trip to Japan? If he was, why didn’t he attempt to do something about it, like taking Ministry of Natural Resources people with him to enter into negotiations on the subject which may lead to changes in the Mining Act?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think certainly in the case of the members from Sudbury, because they have raised it in this House -- they mentioned it, I think, in June, though I’m not sure whether it was in questions -- there has been an awareness of the potential of the problem in the nickel industry. As I understand the facts, the market in the past 60 days, perhaps even in the last six weeks, has altered in a negative way even more rapidly than most had anticipated.

I think it is fair to state that if the member for London Centre is really expecting that one contract could be replaced by another or the supply could be replaced by another, one should take into account the contractual arrangements, I would assume. Secondly, I think I am right in this but I may be totally wrong, there may be some Japanese involvement in the plant in Indonesia --

Mr. S. Smith: Ten per cent.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes. I would expect that they would have some interest and some say in terms of where they buy.

Mr. Peterson: That wasn’t the question I asked. Don’t tell us all you know about nickel in five minutes or less, answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have endeavoured to answer the question. Once again, the member for London Centre may not have understood my answer. It may not be the answer he wanted to hear; it never is, but I have endeavoured to answer it to the best of my ability.

An hon. member: Yon haven’t shown any ability.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, I know. We don’t all have yours.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Germa: Supplementary: Accepting the Premier’s theory that the problem is a worldwide problem because of overproduction in Canada and offshore, can he assure this House that the reduction in production is being carried out on an equitable basis by those two companies, Inco and Falconbridge, as far as their offshore productions are concerned?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have not been personally assured as yet, but it is one of those matters I intend to raise with the chairman of Inco on Thursday.

Mr. Lewis: That’s it; that’s right.

Mr. Speaker: We have had long enough supplementaries on that. The second question from the Leader of the Opposition.

LAYOFF OF NICKEL WORKERS

Mr. S. Smith: On the same topic, slightly related, my second question is to the Premier again. Is the Premier prepared, in his meetings with Inco officials, to use what influence he has to persuade the company to accept some of what I think are reasonable suggestions made by the union, regarding ways in which this blow to Sudbury, and to the people, can be mitigated; such suggestions as advanced pension arrangements, changes in overtime and other benefit arrangements, vacation schedules and possible supplementary benefits?

Would the Premier use his influence with Inco to bring about at least, at the very least, the same arrangements that were in place in Port Colborne during the very unfortunate layoffs that occurred there recently?

[2:30]

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my statement, it would be my expectation that those three or four matters mentioned, and others that have been suggested from other sources, will be the subject of some discussion tomorrow. I said in my statement that those suggestions that seem to have some realistic or practical way of implementation, or at least consideration, would be part of the basis of my conversation with the chairman of the board of Inco on Thursday.

I would expect that those three or four matters, and I know several others, will be raised in the discussions with the company, union and federal officials tomorrow, and it will be from those discussions that we will be getting some hopefully practical and constructive suggestions.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Along the lines of mitigating the impact of this, is the Premier now prepared to offer a DREE arrangement to Eldorado to locate the uranium refinery in the Sudbury area or nearby?

Mr. S. Smith: No, DREE.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With respect, I don’t think it is as simple as saying DREE money. That would be a federal matter in any event. It’s not just a question of money. I don’t think that’s the only consideration.

Mr. Lewis: A question on the same subject: Since it emerges even in this question period that none of us, the Premier included, knows the facts about Inco, its Sudbury operation or its international operations, why will this government not rescind the Inco decision unless it is persuaded somewhere along the road that it contains some legitimate rationale? Why is the government letting Inco do it without response?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, of course, in the mind of the leader of the New Democratic Party it’s a simple issue; and I’m saying, with respect, it is not that simple.

Mr. Warner: Do you ever answer a question?

Mr. Lewis: You have no answers.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The government of this province does not have the statutory authority to say to Inco or any other company: “Rescind that particular decision.”

Mr. Lewis: Then ask for it. Give yourself the authority.

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will not be seeking that authority, certainly at this time. As the leader of the New Democratic Party acknowledges -- and this humility I find both new and interesting -- he himself doesn’t have all the facts. I think it is important for members of this House to have full knowledge of this particular issue. I will do my best to inform hon. members as to the extent of my knowledge and studies and meetings as we have them.

As I say, I have made the suggestion that International Nickel appear before the resources committee where the leader of the New Democratic Party himself, in his own inimitable fashion I’m sure, can elicit some of these observations. I’m not going to be here to defend International Nickel.

Mr. Lewis: That’s what you are doing.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am here to see what we can do, as a government, to alleviate the problem.

Mr. Cassidy: Who’s playing political games now? You are making cheap accusations.

Hon. Mr. Davis: In spite of all the member’s prejudices, in spite of his philosophical approach, which is his and to which he is entitled, he is not going to sweep away a realistic situation where, in fact, there are not sufficient markets for what is being produced.

Mr. Lewis: What realistic situation?

Hon. Mr. Davis: He won’t alter that with any approach that he has suggested.

Mr. Lewis: How do you know?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Nothing he has suggested will alter that.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Premier by way of supplementary: Does he realize that the entire community of Sudbury -- MPPs; MPs; the mayor, who ran as a Conservative candidate; the regional chairman; the unions; the head of the Chamber of Commerce -- all feel and express that this isn’t some kind of short-term layoff, that this may be the beginning of a continuing dismantling of Inco operations in Canada. Therefore, shouldn’t the Premier be certain that all of us know what Inco’s intentions are before he permits them to throw 2,800 people out of work?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if I were a resident of Sudbury, I would have concern about the immediate situation. I wouldn’t minimize it for a moment. I am quite confident --

Mr. Makarchuk: You don’t have to be a resident.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, I lived through a situation which was just as traumatic in my own home community in 1959. Most of the members were too young to remember it --

Mr. Lewis: I remember.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- but I do. I remember it well, and it was unpleasant.

Mr. Nixon: You’re too old.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It was difficult.

Mr. Lewis: John Diefenbaker did it to you.

Hon. Mr. Davis: But believe it or not, the city of Brampton survived and today is a shade more prosperous than it was in 1959.

Mr. Deans: It had a distinct advantage.

Hon. Mr. Davis: There were a lot more than 2,800 -- there were 14,000 employees let out on that particular occasion. So I have some understanding of what’s going on in Sudbury and what the people are facing.

But of this much I am confident, that this is not an action by Inco that relates to their long-term intent to move their production facilities out of Sudbury.

Mr. Lewis: How do you know? Do you know that?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Because I am somewhat familiar as well with some of their long-term plans in terms of capital investment in Ontario-

Mr. Lewis: Oh, but they didn’t tell you about this part of it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- their complete confidence in the economy and the government of this province, of course, and their ability to compete in the international marketplace --

Mr. Mackenzie: What are their long-term plans?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and they have no intention of moving out of the province.

Mr. Cassidy: How do you know?

Hon. Mr. Davis: That much I can tell you.

Mr. Makarchuk: It would be different, though, if they took their nickel with them, wouldn’t it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: As the Treasurer has just pointed out, they have invested from 1970 until now, close to $1 billion in Sudbury. That’s hardly the kind of action that a company would take if they intended to move out in two or three years.

Mr. Lewis: Did the Treasurer also inform the Premier that they’ve taken $1.7 billion profit out of Sudbury in the last 10 years, or did he neglect to say that to him as well?

I want to ask the Premier a very simple supplementary: If he has such confidence in his knowledge of their long-term economic investment in Ontario, how come he didn’t have the faintest idea and how come he wasn’t told that they were going to close down 2,800 workers in January 1978?

Hon. Mr. Davis: As I informed the leader of the New Democratic Party when we were discussing this, I believe on Friday last, the government was informed of this about 4:30 or 5 o’clock on Wednesday afternoon. I cannot answer for the head of Inco, nor am I suggesting --

Mr. Swart: That’s really long-term notification.

Mr. Lewis: That’s consultation.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s fine. I don’t like it any more than anyone else.

Mr. Mackenzie: Then why do you apologize for them?

Hon. Mr. Davis: But my job here is to see what we can do to help, not to come here and say Inco should have told us two days before, or two weeks before --

Mr. Lewis: How can you trust them?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- I doubt that it would have altered the facts that we presently face. I think our task in this House and the task of this government is to see what we can do to help, not spend two hours or two weeks trying to find somebody to blame, some way to play politics and some way to cloud what are the basic issues and what we can do about it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough West with his second question.

Mr. Lewis: Understanding the limitations of stockpiling as an economic tool, does the Premier not think that since we have stockpiled butter, wheat and uranium successfully in situations analogous to this, he might urge upon the federal government a short-term stockpiling route which would allow those 2,800 people to maintain their jobs while we look at the marketplace he’s described?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Here, once again -- and I confess my limitations -- I am not an expert, but I think the --

Mr. Mackenzie: We know.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- well, I know it; I recognize that.

Mr. Breaugh: It is becoming a little more obvious.

Mr. Speaker: The question referred specifically to stockpiling.

Mr. Lewis: It couldn’t be worse than losing their jobs.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I know that it’s serious, but I don’t want to be a part of a policy that will make it either more serious or more long-term than it needs to be. I would urge upon the leader of the New Democratic Party that while this may appear to be, on the surface, a simplistic solution, it might in fact turn out to be just the opposite.

Mr. Deans: It might not, you know.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m prepared to explore anything that makes sense. I’ve got one of the most open minds I know. It may be limited but, at least, it’s open --

Mr. Breithaupt: Almost breezy.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- which is more than I can say for a lot of the members opposite.

Mr. Speaker: We’ll have one final supplementary. We’ve spent over 23 minutes on this.

Mr. Lewis: I take it then, Mr. Speaker, if the Premier responds that way to stockpiling, what is really being said here today, when you strip away all of what you call “the political dimension,” is that we have utterly no answer for this predicament; not a single specific initiative to suggest, at this point in any event, on behalf of those workers as a consequence of Inco’s action?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think that is an unfair summation.

Mr. Breaugh: But true.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not suggesting that we have a solution to the problem.

Mr. Speaker: It’s a questionable supplementary, too.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If the hon. member is saying that we have not found a way to persuade Inco that it is in the interests of its employees, the community and the province to continue producing when they have no one to buy that which they produce -- which, means ultimately, the company is in more difficulty, and so is the community, and so are the workers on a long-term basis -- yes, Mr. Speaker, I’m saying that it is unfortunate, but we have to accept one of the realities.

The basic reality is, and I think our discussions have to flow from this, that at this moment unless everybody is being misled -- and I haven’t heard even the members opposite accusing Inco of this -- they do, in fact, have a very substantial surplus of product. There is a surplus on the world market and they, in fact, cannot sell. If somebody over there can prove that to be wrong, that adds another dimension, but I think, in fairness, they will have great difficulty in doing so. I wish they could.

Mr. Peterson: I have a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: No, there will be no more supplementaries on this item. We have spent over 23 minutes on it.

Mr. Peterson: But it is a very important issue.

Mr. Speaker: You cannot question the ruling of the Speaker during oral questions.

Mr. Reid: We have had only one supplementary on this question.

Mr. Speaker: We spent 30 minutes on Friday on this matter, and we’ve spent 25 minutes today. I recognize the hon. member for Kitchener-Wilmot with a new question.

OHC LAND SALES

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Housing. Perhaps this is an issue that the government can do something about.

Given the fact that the minister has travelled around this province saying very clearly that there is need for more low-cost housing; given the fact that it’s well understood that one of the problems in bringing low-cost housing on the market is the very high cost of serviced land, and given the fact that the land banks which his ministry has set up were built very specifically for the purpose of helping to bring low-cost serviced land on the market, what does he believe is a justifiable rate of profit for OHC when it sells its land?

Mr. Deans: That’s doubtful, even that is doubtful. Tell him what Stanley Randall told us.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I am not about to suggest what is a justifiable rate of profit. I indicated when I first announced our new land policy in this House that we would sell land at the low end of the market, and that’s exactly what we’re doing.

Mr. Sweeney: Is the minister aware of the fact that in my community he is selling land supposedly for low-cost housing at a profit of at least 100 per cent on what he paid for it, and that by using market value as the basis, he is defeating the whole purpose of his intent? He is building in the speculative part of the profit, the very thing that he has said he wants to prevent, the very thing that local builders say prevents them from building low-cost housing, the very thing that the planners said was wrong. How can you justify it?

Mr. Deans: It has always been the government policy.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sweeney: How can you justify it?

Mr. Deans: Tell him, John; you have always done that.

Mr. Speaker: The question is, after all of the editorializing, “How can you justify it?” Does the minister have an answer?

Mr. Makarchuk: Darcy needs the money.

[2:45]

Mr. S. Smith: What was the minister’s answer?

Mr. Breithaupt: There was no answer.

Mr. Breaugh: Supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: There was no answer, so there can’t be a supplementary.

Mr. Breaugh: To the original question?

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a new question?

Mr. Breithaupt: On a point of order, can I be advised if the minister is following the rule 27(i)? Is he, in his discretion, declining to answer that question?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I wasn’t following any rule 27(i), I had just resumed my seat during the interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The minister can answer in any way he chooses, and he doesn’t have the floor right now.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The minister doesn’t have the floor and the hon. member for Kitchener didn’t have the floor to ask the question. If the member for Oshawa has a new question, I will recognize him.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think this may be appropriate. I think the minister of --

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing out of order at the present time so there can’t be a point of order. I will recognize the hon. member for Oshawa.

Mr. Eaton: He was going to answer and was interrupted.

Mr. S. Smith: That was the best answer you ever gave, John.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr. Breaugh: Yes, I do. I would like to ask the Minister of Housing if it is accurate that the lands his ministry bought in this Kitchener area some nine years ago at $3,500 an acre, it is now marketing at $90,000 to $95,000 an acre? Is that accurate?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I can’t give the exact price per acre. I can tell the member that the land was purchased in 1969 -- and I am referring now to the estimated land cost as I have it here -- at $750,000 and the development cost was $4,350,00, for a total -- in phase one only, which is 126.5 acres -- of $8,070,000. Now, if I say that the land was purchased at $35,000 an acre, I will leave that to the member’s own mathematics. I would also tell him that the land is being sold at the low end of the market value; what the price is will depend upon what the zoning is, as is usual in most cases in the sale of land.

Mr. Breaugh: I wonder if the minister could then present to the House within the next day or so the exact figures that he is using? What were his exact costs, what are his exact sale prices, because I have seen an indication in the past --

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, certainly. It is either the fourth or fifth time they have been presented in the House. I would be quite happy to present those figures.

Mr. Sweeney: Supplementary: If the Minister of Housing doesn’t have the exact figures of selling, is it not true that the total value to his ministry, his so-called book value of that land, is $30,000 per acre and he is selling it in the range of $75,000 to $95,000. Is that not true? His book figures.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to enter into a debate on numbers with the hon. member because I don’t know whether he is referring to the book value for raw land or the book value for developed land. As he well knows, sir -- as I just said a few moments ago in response to another question -- our development costs on 126 acres of that land were over $4,350,000, so I am not going to say that it’s $30,000 or $35,000. I would like to get the exact costs of what our book value would be at this particular time, and I am estimating that our book value on that 126 acres of land would be in the area of $8 million plus.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, let’s take it from another point of view. Using the minister’s figure of $8 million, the best estimate from the planning department of the city of Kitchener is that he is going to get $17 million for spending $8 million. Would he agree with that?

Mr. Breithaupt: That’s 100 per cent.

Mr. Sweeney: Over 100 per cent.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I am not sure whether the hon. member is dealing with the 305 acres of land in total or phase one, which is 126 acres -- and I am not too sure that he is --

Mr. Sweeney: We’re dealing with the same amount of land that the minister is talking about.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: To begin with, he is not accurate on the numbers he is using. I estimate -- and I say quite openly -- the total amount of profit, if you will, on this land will be in the vicinity of $3 million.

Mr. Sweeney: No way.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I don’t have to respond any more than with the figures I have. The hon. member has not done his homework.

Mr. Sweeney: I have the figures.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: With the greatest of respect, he became involved in this issue over one piece of land --

Mr. Speaker: The question has been answered, thank you.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The hon. member hasn’t done his homework. Let him count his fingers.

Mr. Sweeney: I got it from the planning department of the city of Kitchener.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Oh, do your homework!

Mr. Lewis: You shouldn’t make a 35 per cent profit on public land.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I won’t.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: He doesn’t make it; the people do.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

LOSS OF DOCTORS

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, last week I was asked by the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. Johnson) to report on physician emigration. Today I received such a report and I would like to table it for the members’ information. It will be distributed to all of the members.

There have also been reports in the press about growing numbers of doctors leaving Ontario, and I would like to set the record straight.

Available data indicate that in the past few years the movement of Ontario physicians has increased from the 1971-72 level, when it was almost zero. But there is no hard evidence that the numbers of physicians lost represent an attrition greater than the average over the years. The real problem continues to be one of growing oversupply.

While there was a temporary drop in 1975, the average rate of attrition for physicians has been three per cent over the years, and recent emigration has not changed this.

One measure of the high living standards Ontarians share is the extent to which every resident, of whatever age and income, is covered by a basic but comprehensive government-sponsored health plan. Not only have we one of the best health insurance plans in the world, but it is backed up by some of the best doctors in the world.

I must say that I am very concerned about the morale of the doctors in Ontario, and our government is working closely with the medical profession -- with the Ontario Medical Association, and with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

Members will be aware of a statement in the press today about alleged bureaucratic harassment. I issue to the OMA or to any concerned party an invitation to bring to my attention any example of bureaucratic harassment. I make a firm commitment that as Minister of Health I will continue to address any such situation.

Ontario doctors have concerns and they share them with my ministry, so we can work them out together. I am aware of their concerns and we do meet regularly to discuss them. In short, I consider our relationship with the medical profession to be a good one. We are working together to get the real job done -- looking after the health of every citizen of this province.

We have no shortage of doctors in Ontario, and we do not expect such a shortage to develop.

I am sorry that in the preparation of my answer some of the figures were not put into the text of my answer. This will be distributed to all members for their perusal and perhaps for their questions at a later time.

Mr. Reid: Supplementary: May I ask the minister, when he speaks of oversupply, what he is doing about the lack of supply of doctors in northern Ontario, specifically in communities like Ignace, Emo, Fort Frances and other areas like that? And other than the subsidy program that has been in effect for some years, what policy has the ministry come up with to supply doctors for those areas in northern Ontario that are grossly underserviced?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am looking for some figures, Mr. Speaker; I had the numbers here for the underserviced area program. At the present, out of 285 positions in the underserviced area program, there are about 22 vacancies, I believe. And out of the 99 dentistry positions in the underserviced area program, I think we are running at about 18 or 20 vacancies in that area.

This program, I think, has been eminently successful; it is one which has been examined by jurisdictions all over the world. In recent times visitors to Ontario have included the Minister of Health of Sweden and the Secretary of Health of the United States, both of whom have wanted to learn about our underserviced area program and have gone away very impressed that it is one of the most thorough of its kind in the world.

Mr. Reid: Supplementary: I realize it is a pretty good program; I suggested it 10 years ago.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr. Reid: But if we have this oversupply, what specific policies, other than the subsidy program, is the minister using to get doctors into these communities that are short of them? That’s the question.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As the hon. member knows, there are a number of instances where we fund clinics, if you will. There is one in Ignace, if my memory serves me correctly, where we fund the clinic on a global budget, and it hires the medical and nursing staff. That’s an alternative that’s available where such a clinic could be viable.

Otherwise, we are relying on the subsidy and, through Dr. Copeman in my ministry, we’re working very hard to fill the vacancies as soon as possible.

EDWARDSBURGH LAND ASSEMBLY

Mr. Sterling: This is a question directed to the Minister of Industry and Tourism. In view of the comments contained in the Ontario Land Corporation annual report regarding the Edwardsburgh land site and recent speculation as to the transfer of responsibility of the site from Industry and Tourism to Natural Resources, can the minister indicate whether he is willing to table the final Dillon report on the land use capability of the site so that the local communities can have meaningful input before any final decision on this matter is made?

Mr. Breithaupt: We had that last week.

Mr. Nixon: That’s not the Tory way.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, first of all, may I correct a misunderstanding -- the land that presently is held in Edwardsburgh is not held by the Ministry of Industry and Tourism. The land is held by the Ontario Land Corporation. We as a ministry have been assigned the responsibility of trying to find industries that would locate in a major industrial park in Edwardsburgh.

Members will recall that some months ago we contracted with Dillon to produce --

Mr. Nixon: They still think you’re off your rocker.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: We asked Dillon to put together a report indicating clearly the land-use factors, how the land should be divided and what other purposes it might be put into other than industrial use.

It was reported to this House, and it’s been in the press, that Dillon clearly indicated to us that a large acreage could be used for industrial purposes, particularly that land adjacent to the St. Lawrence, while other lands could be used for recreational purposes, for forestry production and agricultural production.

The report has been with our ministry. There has been input to the report from the mayors and the reeves of the various communities, and I shall take under consideration bringing the report into a public position.

Mr. Nixon: You are off your rocker.

Mr. Samis: Supplementary: Can the minister assure the municipalities in eastern Ontario that there will be due opportunity for input given to the municipalities before any decision is made as to future use of this site? Secondly, on any use in terms of forestry, will he assure us there will be consultation with the forest industry, namely, the pulp and paper plants, in eastern Ontario before any decision is made?

Mr. Breithaupt: The same input they gave when you bought it.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I have no reason to indicate otherwise to this House. We will ask for the input of all of those at the political level and at the industrial level in eastern Ontario as to the future use of Edwardsburgh land.

Mr. Samis: Before any decision?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: There has been a very clear indication that a large acreage there can be used for forestry production. We are going to investigate it. The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. F. S. Miller) and others will work together in relation to that.

Regardless of who is asked to do what with this land in the interim, we are looking for industries for it. I can assure members that the ministry will continue to press to find large industries to go into Edwardsburgh township property. Let me make it very clear --

Mr. Speaker: The supplementary dealt specifically with forestry.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: No, it didn’t, Mr. Speaker. I think it dealt with other uses as well, if I interpret the remarks. Very clearly, we will look at all aspects of it, but while the land is sitting there we are going to find some practical use for it until we find industry.

Mr. Sweeney: Give it to John.

JAILING OF WOMEN

Mr. Stong: In the absence of the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Drea), I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services.

In view of that minister’s contemplation of the imposition of five-year jail terms on women and in the light of his policy statement in the Sunday Star yesterday: “We don’t believe any more, that any mother is better than no mother, and we have facilities to look after her children” --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That is a sexist remark.

Mr. Stong: -- has the Minister of Correctional Services discussed this government policy with his colleague, and if, as he advocates, there is a large-scale imprisonment of women, what arrangements has this minister made to assist and look after the children involved?

An hon. member: Put them all to work.

Mr. Breithaupt: Wait till Barbara Yaffe gets that one.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I must say I was not aware that there had been a policy decision on the part of the government on that particular matter. I have not had an opportunity to discuss it with my colleague, the Minister of Correctional Services, and I assure the member I will as soon as he is available.

Mr. Breithaupt: That’s strike one.

Hon. Mr. Norton: However, should it become government policy I can assure members that my ministry is ready, willing and able to respond to ensure the welfare of the children who might be affected by any such policy.

[3:00]

Mr. Sweeney: Do you mean you are really going to try to follow it?

OTTAWA BOARD OF CONTROL

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question of the Treasurer concerning his request to the city of Ottawa to withdraw its private bill concerning the abolition of board of control.

In view of the report of Mr. Hickey, the Mayo commission report and the very strong request of city council to go ahead with the abolition of the board of control, can he assure the House that the amendments to the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Act in the spring will include the abolition of Ottawa’s board of control?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I can’t give that assurance until we have had a chance to examine the whole of the Mayo report. On the other hand, it is obvious that other legislation which has dealt with regions has in many instances wound up boards of control. So I think it is a reasonable assumption, if not an out-and-out commitment.

Mr. Cassidy: In view of the statements made by the members for Ottawa South (Mr. Bennett) and for Ottawa West (Mr. Baetz) who did not like the city’s request, can the minister assure the House that he will let the city of Ottawa know his intentions within the near future so that if they have to proceed by private bill they have ample warning?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: As soon as I know what my intentions are they will be announced in this House.

NURSES’ DISPUTE

Mr. Lane: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Health. Is the minister aware that the public health nurses in the Sudbury-Manitoulin district have been on strike since last Thursday morning? If he is aware of it, will he try to get these two groups together to try to settle the differences?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am aware there has been a strike in place in that unit since Thursday. The report I had, at least as of Friday, is that the board is going to try to get together with some of its employees to try to work out the differences. At this point in time, we are not intervening.

Mr. Lane: In view of the great distances covered by these nurses, would the minister contact the medical health officer in Sudbury to see just how acute the situation is at the present time?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I didn’t quite catch the first part of the question but I take it the hon. member is asking that we ensure that the vital services of the health unit are as much as possible maintained. That is something we would monitor on a daily basis. I should point out that if there were to be any provincial government involvement in the labour dispute, it would be with the assistance of my colleague, the Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson).

SKYWAY TOLLS

Mr. Bradley: A question for the provincial Treasurer: Last week the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) tabled an answer to a question I had in the House indicating that the tolls on the Burlington Skyway and Garden City Skyway produced a revenue of $4.28 million in the last full year of operation. In light of the Treasurer’s expressed concern about the anticipated revenues for this fiscal year, has he given consideration to reimposing the tolls on these two bridges and allowing our American friends to assist us in paying?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr. Swart: In view of the statement by the PMLC to the Treasurer last Friday, and I quote: “The PMLC considers the unilateral breach of the Edmonton commitment by the government of Ontario totally unacceptable,” is he now willing to move back and negotiate his arbitrary revamping of the Edmonton commitment formula, which reduced the commitment from $421 million to $177 million or just a 5.3 per cent increase for those local government and agencies for next year?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The hon. member was there on Friday morning and he heard my answer, which was no.

Mr. Deans: Do you mean you haven’t changed your mind since Friday?

Mr. Swart: Doesn’t the Treasurer realize that this will likely force property taxes in 1978 up to a greater extent than the average 12.8 per cent for the last three years, and wouldn’t everyone else but himself think that perhaps it’s a rotten way to use the municipalities and the property taxpayers?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, the answer to both parts of the member’s question, as I heard them, is no.

CAS BUDGETS

Mr. C. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. In view of the Children’s Aid Society’s budgetary difficulties in the county of Simcoe, what programs will the minister be putting forth to end those problems?

Hon. Mr. Norton: The budgetary experience of that particular Children’s Aid Society is not that different from a group of others whose budgets are still unresolved for this fiscal year.

We began communicating with that particular society in April of this year, indicating the degree of adjustment that would be made in their original estimates, pursuant to notification that each society got in December of last year. Since that time there has been a series of meetings with officials of my ministry going on throughout the summer. As of the early part of August or mid-August, the society was notified formally by me of the final adjustment that would be in their 1977-78 budget.

That, as in the case of all Children’s Aid Societies is a matter which is subject to appeal by the society to a committee of review, and we have been notified by the Simcoe County Children’s Aid Society that they wish to have such a review.

I have appointed the chairman of the review committee and we are presently awaiting the appointment of the municipal representative by the municipalities affected. I have not yet received notification of their choice, but as soon as that takes place, I will be in a position to fix a date for the hearing and they will have a further opportunity to present their concerns. The committee will then recommend a final solution to me.

I would point out that in the longer term, I am well aware of the fact that this year there have been delays, as there have been for many years, in the processing of Children’s Aid Society budgets. I have been working with my staff in an effort to try to improve upon that procedure. At the present time we anticipate receipt of the Children’s Aid Societies’ estimates for 1978 by approximately the middle of November and will immediately begin processing those with a view to being able to give them --

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. minister shorten his answer?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I realize that this is a question of considerable concern to members on both sides of the House and I simply wish to outline --

Mr. S. Smith: Just say yes.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I was asked what programs or what approaches the ministry had to try to resolve this kind of problem.

Mr. Warner: You have had enough time to explain the shambles.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Given the opportunity, I will complete that answer. It is our plan by the end of February to be in a position to notify the societies of what the adjustments will be in their budgets for that fiscal year. So the whole process should be moved up by six or eight months.

WINTARIO FUNDS

Mr. Kerrio: I have a question of the Minister of Culture and Recreation. Does the minister recall in the statement from the Treasurer that the major change in our financial situation is a significant downward adjustment in revenue? In the words of the Premier today these are difficult times. Would the minister think it is time to reconsider the application of Wintario funds -- the spending of them?

Hon. Mr. Welch: The criteria for the Wintario grants program are under constant and regular review.

Mr. Kerrio: Maybe a more direct question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the financial difficulties in the province of Ontario, and job problems and such, would the minister reconsider and, maybe, put to this House the question of the reallocation of lottery funds to other purposes in our economy?

Hon. Mr. Welch: The hon. member will know that

section 9 of the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act is very specific with respect to the areas to be given attention by the Ontario grant program.

Mr. Kerrio: I just ask the minister to consider. I know the specifics.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Would the hon. member drop me a note as to other areas in a specifically designated field which he thought should be covered by the program; no doubt he would share that information with me? I would point out that it’s obviously against the general government policy; these are seen as dedicated funds and do not form part of the general revenues of the province.

Mr. Kerrio: That’s right. That’s what I would like to change.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You supported the legislation.

TTC FUNDING

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications; Why does the province of Ontario want to run the Toronto Transit Commission?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Resign.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Resign, you are a disaster.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I was going to say I don’t know --

An hon. member: He is probably right.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- but I’d like to assure the hon. member that the province of Ontario has no intention or desire whatsoever to run the Toronto Transit Commission.

Mr. Warner: Supplementary: Is the minister then saying that he will take the strings off the conditional grant for operating expenses, so that Metro is not forced either to raise property taxes or the fares?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t know what strings the hon. member is referring to. To my knowledge there are basically no strings attached to the operating grants that this province makes in a very substantial amount to the TTC for operation of its system. We make two types of grants to Metro; we don’t make any grants to TTC. We make a grant to Metro for operating expense. We met with the officials of Metropolitan Toronto this year and they are quite agreeable and satisfied, I believe, with the system as it’s working and with the formula and the amount of grant that they will receive.

We also make grants, as the hon. member knows, I’m sure, in the amount of 75 per cent of the capital expenditures. My staff and the staff of the TTC, the staff of Metro and the budget chief of Metro between them have decided on their level of spending for this present year and for next year; and our budget has made provision for our 75 per cent of that level of spending. So I don’t know what strings the hon. member is referring to.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Does the minister not recognize that the 75 per cent grant for capital might in certain instances be much better used to supplement operating expenses in order to prevent transit fare increases or property tax increases, because fare increases would further reduce ridership? Why does he not simply allocate an amount of money and let Toronto decide whether it wants to build such things as the light rail vehicle to Scarborough, or whether it wants to reduce its transit fares?

Hon. Mr. Snow: In the legislation there are two provisions for grants. I would not be prepared to consider removing the division between the operating and the capital grants, because they’re two completely separate programs.

Mr. Warner: Is the minister not aware that a letter came from his ministry indicating that Metro must collect 70 per cent of the operating cost by way of the fare box, otherwise it does not get 15 per cent from the province of Ontario? And that the Metro chairman, Paul Godfrey -- I gather a friend of the side over there --

Mr. Breithaupt: At times.

Mr. Warner: -- reacts objectively and reacts against the letter that has come from your ministry?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t think the hon. member has his figures right at all. First of all, about a year ago, or a little earlier than this last year, I announced a new formula for all municipal transit systems whereby the provincial contribution would be based on a percentage of all operating costs of the system. I believe the percentage for Metropolitan Toronto is something in the neighbourhood of 13.75 per cent of total operating cost.

This is based on the target established for Metropolitan Toronto of raising 72.5 per cent of their operating costs from the fare box, and the 13.75 per cent is 50 per cent of the difference between the anticipated fare box revenues and the operating costs of the system.

This leaves the municipalities with the option, if they can have a more efficient system, to still get the 13.75 per cent even if they get a higher revenue from the fare box, which would cut down on municipal expenditures.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

[3:25]

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AND COMMERCIAL RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Davison moved first reading of Bill 75,

An Act to amend the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Davison: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amendment is to require the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to submit an annual report to the assembly, and thereby to the consumers of Ontario, so that we know what they’re doing.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (CONTINUED)

On vote 1601, item 1, main office:

Mr. Chairman: When the committee rose last session, we were discussing item 1 of vote 1601. Any further comments?

Mr. Stong: I notice in dealing with the main office that the projected estimates for 1977-78 are $638 million. I also notice that in the material supplied to me for the Solicitor General the estimates for 1976-77 for the main office were $606 million. I’m wondering how he correlates that with the report of the public accounts committee which reported for the year ended March 31, 1977, an estimate of $226 million and Management Board approval of $36 million, making a total of $262 million. How does that correlate with the increase he is requesting under this particular vote in his estimates for this year?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, if you could wait for a minute, I think I’ll have that information.

Mr. Chairman: I believe the hon. minister has the answer.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, If the hon. member is looking at the public accounts report to which he referred -- and I think he’s looking at estimates under what was then vote 1501, at a $226,000 estimate for item 1 and the Management Board approvals of $36,000 -- if he’ll look at the next estimate of $380,000 under vote 1501, item 2, my information is that they have merged those two votes in the 1977-78 estimates.

Mr. Stong: I’m still having a little difficulty then, because the public accounts committee reported -- and the minister will notice the explanation on page 253; it breaks it down item by item on the actual cost.

Just for my own understanding, the estimates for 1976-77 showed salaries and wages at $395,000, where in fact the actual cost was $218,277. That does not appear to me to be a merger between those two votes. However, I stand to be corrected on that. There’s quite a discrepancy. Then this year the estimates are up to $416,500 over $218,277 for last year. If you take those two figures, the increase is almost double. I can’t see any indication in the material of the combining of those two votes.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I wonder if the hon. member would tell us the place where he’s getting the $395,000 from.

Mr. Stong: In the material supplied by the minister in the black book. It’s under vote 1601, item 1, of the estimates for 1976-77 in the column for salaries and wages, which is $395,000. It was, in fact, for the same period. That’s the estimate. It doesn’t seem to separate those two votes, as the minister has indicated. Public accounts has another amount that is much less, and this year we’re seeking much more.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I am not sure we have all the answers as clearly as we should have. The answers are all here. What we are trying to do is put down in this year’s estimates a number of figures from last year’s estimates, some of which have been shifted about a little bit. Among them, there is an item for some $60,000 for legal expenses which have been transferred. That helps to add some confusion.

As I understand it, you are looking at salary and wages in the 1976-77 estimates of $173,000 and unclassified salaries of $17,000, which total $190,000. If we then head over to the main office in 1976-77, we get a number of figures here: Salaries and Wages, $117,000; unclassified salaries, $26,000; then that legal figure of $60,000 comes in; overtime, $2,000, and attendance bonuses, $300, which gives us a total of $205,300.

I don’t feel that you are going to be able to follow those figures from what I have been saying here. What we had better do for you at the supper break is give you a breakdown where you can follow where we have taken them out of last year’s budget and placed them into this year’s budget. if that will be satisfactory. I know it’s confusing but when you transfer a few items from one budget in one year to another place in the budget the next year, such as was done with legal expenses, it does add to that confusion. if we can give those figures to you at the supper break, I think that will make it easier for you as well as myself to follow.

Mr. Stong: I wonder if I could have some explanation with respect to the $60,000 legal expenses. Is that outside of the lawyers that the ministry employs and, if so, to what firm was that paid and for what?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: That is one of the items we are talking about that is for this year, shown in this place this year. Last year they were shown as a separate item. In other words, this year they are shown as part of the main office, where we think they are more properly shown, and last year they were shown as a separate item.

The $60,000 consists of the salaries of two lawyers who really belonged to the Attorney General’s ministry but who have been attached to our ministry, Mr. John Ritchie and Mr. David Spring. They have one secretary between them. It covers two lawyers’ and one secretary’s salary.

Mr. Stong: Is that $60,000 representing salaries for the two lawyers and the secretary from the Attorney General’s department? Are they on the Attorney General’s payroll as well? I am concerned about a spill-over into the different ministries in this area in Justice policy. I am just concerned whether this represents something that could be combined in the ministries rather than separate.

[3:30]

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: They are not shown in the Attorney General’s estimates, but in our estimates. For appointment and responsibility all of the solicitors throughout the whole government are considered as members of the Attorney General’s staff who are giving legal advice, I believe. They are not shown, however, in the Attorney General’s budget, but in the budgets of the various ministries.

When I say all lawyers, there are other lawyers such as my deputy minister who is a solicitor. I don’t put him in that category; but those who are giving legal advice to the ministry.

Mr. Lupusella: As far as I see, it seems that from item 1 to item 7 there was an increase of $383,000. I heard the concern about those two lawyers working for the Solicitor General by providing legal assistance to him, and my main question is if it is possible, instead of having two lawyers in his office in relation to legal problems which might arise from time to time, that the Solicitor General could use the staff of the Attorney General for such assistance maybe this would save some money?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, of the two solicitors that we have, the junior of the two works almost exclusively for the Ontario Provincial Police. They have a number of ongoing problems on a daily basis and he works almost exclusively, as I say, with them. Those are for internal problems. I am not saying that he gives advice in connection with prosecutions at all, but just dealing with the legal questions that arise within the operations of the Ontario Provincial Police.

The other, Mr. Ritchie, who is the senior of the two, is the one in charge of drafting our various regulations and any proposed legislation that we may have. He also answers a number of legal questions, some of them that I see the most of are those dealing with the

interpretation of the holiday and Sunday closing Act. I can’t see that either one of them has any spare time.

As a matter of fact, I am pressing Mr. Ritchie to bring forward a little faster, if he can do so, some of the legislation that I want to put before the House. Our concern is, of course, that the House is not able to absorb the legislation as quickly as I might like to put it before you. Therefore, Mr. Ritchie is not behind as far as the House is concerned, but he has a heavy load as far as the ministry is concerned.

I don’t see that we could get along with any less. Also, of course, we have problems coming up from time to time through the coroners. They have a variety of legal problems and they seek either the advice of Mr. Ritchie or Mr. Spring in regard to the matter of

interpretation of the law that the coroners raise from time to time.

They serve the whole ministry, and I think if you look at the various ministries of the government you will find, when it comes to legal advice, for a ministry that is actively engaged in the law we are probably running as closely and as efficiently as any ministry in this regard.

Mr. Lupusella: With all respect to the minister’s statement, I realize that there is a need, in fact, to seek legal assistance from the two lawyers involved. The reason I have been raising this particular concern is that, as we heard and read in the newspapers lately, almost 100 OPP officers are going to be laid off. I don’t know when, and if, the Solicitor General in fact is going to follow this procedure to lay off 100 OPP officers. In northern Ontario, for example, there was a particular request for OPP officers; they do need them.

Instead of following this kind of routine in relation to laying off the OPP officers, is there any other way the Solicitor General can trim different sectors of his branch? It is something which is not really necessary; we don’t have to sacrifice 100 OPP officers. I would like to have an answer for that.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I am very pleased to have this opportunity to say a few words on that subject which, as we know, made a few headlines over the weekend.

I was interviewed by the Globe and Mail last Friday afternoon and as a result we had a flurry of stories over the weekend, some of them suggesting, as the hon. member for Dovercourt has done, that this was about to happen. My assurance to the press and my assurance to this House is that it is not about to happen without a great deal more examination. My expressed hope is that it will not happen at all.

The cabinet has issued a direction to us, like all of the ministries of government, that we should curtail expenditures where possible. This, of course, might lead in some cases to the curtailment of staff. I think that’s very healthy and very good to examine this problem, and as in the other ministries, I asked my people to examine how we could go about this.

I think the hope of the Management Board and Treasury was that some curtailment of staff could take place by not filling the position created by attrition. We’re very fortunate in my ministry that the OPP do not have a sizable attrition rate. In other words, these are people who take the work on as a lifetime career. Many of those who might be unsuitable are weeded out in the early process before they become permanent -- during the probationary period.

By the time they become accepted officers on the force, they are determined to make it a lifetime career and we are satisfied that they are capable of making it a lifetime career. So we have very little attrition in the uniformed personnel of the OPP.

When we examined it -- and as I say, it was a healthy exercise that we should examine it -- we found that we could not meet any great savings by simply not reappointing by reason of attrition. If we were to make any kind of a saving, it would have to be by reduction of the numbers of the junior officers, because they were the people without seniority and the people who, in the ordinary course, would go first.

My officials reported back to me very quickly that this is what their examination showed. I immediately made my concerns known to certain other members of the cabinet, including the Treasurer and the Chairman of Management Board and the Premier himself. The instructions I received at that time from them -- I say instructions; the suggestions I received -- were that certainly there was to be no dismissal of uniformed people at the present time until cabinet had reassessed the position in regard to all of the uniformed staff.

That reassessment is presently being taken. I hope to present to the Management Board very shortly the problem that we have. I am hopeful -- and in fact expect -- that some relief from that program will be given the OPP. I said to the question when it was raised -- and of course there is no denying that we were looking at this possibility, but when the possible ways we can achieve it are reported back, I am satisfied that we are not going to achieve it in that way -- by any reduction of OPP personnel.

I would remind you that we have a lot invested in these people. They have received extensive training, extensive screening and it is the young people we need in the OPP, people who we can move up into some of the northern detachments, some of the places that are not quite as desirable as other locations in the province. Certainly I have no thought that any of them will be dismissed because these are the people we perhaps need the most -- the young and the new constables.

The following and overriding point I would like to make is that the province and the government regard law and order as a very essential part of the program of government. In these times of trouble when many people are calling for more policing, we are not about to reduce provincial policing.

I would remind you what we have done for the municipal forces. The municipal forces last year received greater grants on the per capita basis. I know those grants were unconditional grants, but they are based on the population and earmarked for police work. Last year we increased those, both to the regional and the municipal forces. It would be a little inconsistent for us to increase the grants municipally and reduce our own forces.

A further point: you will recall that in March of this year I announced that we had received another $1.25 million to help us in our fight against organized crime. Some additional officers were taken on as a result of that. I think that organized crime has improved --

Mr. Cunningham: Tell us all about it.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: When I say improved, I think it has been reduced a little since last March. But again it would be a little inconsistent, having given this extra money in the spring, to decide, a few months later, that we should retract it.

So, yes, the problem was examined. But when the exercise is looked at and the results of that exercise are made known to cabinet, I feel confident that we will not be reducing the police force and attempting to save money in that way.

Mr. Lupusella: I would like to make a short comment on that, if I may. I am really glad to hear that the Solicitor General has taken such a position and will protect those OPP members who are already on the force, in view of the total amount of money which the province of Ontario is spending on the OPP. I also would like to have an assurance from the Solicitor General as to whether or not he will protect, in some way, the service and the programs which the native police officers have initiated in order that no cuts will affect the native communities as well.

Mr. Chairman: I might say some of the questions properly should come under vote 1604. However if the minister wishes to complete the answer to that question, it would be all right.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In that this will be a final decision of cabinet, I, of course, am unable to give as definite assurance as I would like to be able to do. But I think I mentioned the other day that I couldn’t say what the odds were but I thought that they were close to 90 per cent that we would not be reducing personnel.

The hon. member for Dovercourt makes reference to our native police program. It is one of our very successful programs. I think it is doing a great deal to establish a rapport among not only the police and the natives but, through the police, the civilian population off the reserves. I have the native chiefs asking for more police all of the time. In view of the fact that it is so successful and that that is where we want our young constables, both native and otherwise, I think if there should be any reduction -- and the chance for reduction is slight -- that the native program would be the last place that we would make that reduction.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further questions on item 1? The member for Lakeshore.

[3:45]

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence -- and I’ll test it -- normally in estimates the initial questions under the main office vote or the first vote have within reason -- whatever that is -- fairly wide-ranging elements. I have some questions on that, while I suppose it could be argued they would fall elsewhere. At the same time, in my previous experience there have been no real objections. I will make them as short as I can. I have several very broad questions concerning the Solicitor Generalship as such.

It also has the effect -- and whether you do it later or you do it now I suspect matters very little -- that you get a feeling of going ahead and getting on to the next vote. That may be illusory. Let’s not hallucinate ourselves in this assembly.

First of all, very briefly, year after year in all the time I have been here, particularly with my colleague the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick), it seems as to the general philosophy of policing, let me put it that way, the department continues to exist in a state of confusion, even obfuscation, in this particular regard as to what it thinks the police function ought to be and what it is.

On one side, the police chiefs almost invariably speak in terms of a para-military organization with all that that implies in terms of discipline, echelons, categories, uniforms, blowing your nose, polishing your boots and doing any other number of things, as though you were under basic training in a perpetual way.

That’s the American concept of policing. We’ve been over this ground. But I’m just going to mention it briefly again this year. That’s the whole American approach to the police operation. There is a British approach, which I thought you would be more attuned to in the department, which is more in line with the report on the status of policing in Ontario, that a very considerable amount of autonomy, spontaneity and individual judgement be reposed in the individual police officer, that he has a very considerable discretion. That discretion was reaffirmed in the reports, et cetera. But that’s not the way the thing operates, and it bothers me.

I think that you are going to have to straighten out in your own mind as to where the emphasis should be. There have to be internal disciplines but do they have to be on a military model, or might they not be on a more flexible type of British model with respect to the way in which our particular police act? That would greatly aid in rapport with the citizen at large and in the approach of the police officer. Again, as I say, it’s in line with the report. But that’s not what you do. Your whole gravamen is towards the American system and it’s getting worse. That’s my first serious thought. Do you want to answer that? I have some more specific stuff.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I appreciate the question from the member for Lakeshore and I am sure I could discuss it with him at great length. I think that on appearances we are closer to the British system than the American system.

He mentioned the matter of discipline and the matter of judgement. I don’t say they don’t necessarily go hand in hand. If you look at the American policeman we have an image of them. I don’t wish to run down the American patrolmen as such, but I think you will find that the policeman on patrol in most Ontario communities has a smarter, more military appearance and is more like the policemen you will see working under the British system than those you find in the United States. When it comes to dress, appearance and actions on the street, you will find our Ontario policemen more akin to the British policemen in matters of this sort than you will to the American policemen.

In all of these things, it is a case of trying to hit a happy mixture. Police operations must be of a semi- or para-military nature.

If you detail a man to go to a certain place you expect that man to be there, and you expect him to be there when the hour of his appointment calls for him to be there. In that sense you must have discipline. He can’t return to his officer and say, “I thought I had something more important to do,” or, “I had to answer some other type of call.” If he is delegated to go there, he must be there and he must be ready to account for his attendance there, or explain why he was not there.

Mr. Lawlor: So do you.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: That is right, but his officer must know that he is there. If I am not where I’m supposed to be I have to do an accounting of sorts too, but it’s probably not a matter of life and death if I’m not there. Very often in the police operations it is a matter of life and death.

So I’m not going to say that you can remove the type of punctuality and that kind of obedience of orders from our police, nor is it removed from the British system. I had the advantage of going to a short inspection of the British college just outside London in February of this year, and if you think we have spit and polish around our training barracks, you should see the kind of operations they are put through there.

So when you try to differentiate our system from the British system on these matters of discipline I fail to see that you’re making a valid differentiation. When it comes to matters of judgement I would hope that the kind of people we are now getting into the force and the kind of education that we are giving them at Aylmer and other places would allow for greater discretion; but nobody objects to the use of police discretion -- unless they give that discretion in the favour of the citizen -- faster than the citizen himself.

As you know, when a breach of a statute or a law, the Criminal Code or otherwise, occurs, we don’t want to turn the policeman into both judge and jury. On this matter of breathalysers, we are finding that people object to the policeman being the person who should decide. I know under the Criminal Code they don’t decide that, but giving them as much discretion as the present use of the roadside breathalyser would purport to give them. I don’t know just where the division is between the policeman exercising his judgement and passing the judgement on to the courts to be exercised by them.

I am one who thinks that our police would probably gain in favour a little bit with the public if they gave out more warnings. You can’t, of course, give out a warning in a criminal case, but you can under the Highway Traffic Act. I just notice that the hon. member for Yorkview (Mr. Young) is in his seat, and I think if he was to ask me what about safety problems on the highways, he would probably be in favour of fewer warnings and more summonses issued when it came to such matters as seat belts, speeding and breaches of the Highway Traffic Act.

I would hope that we would strike a happy balance in regard to discipline. I would hope that we could strike a happy balance in regard to the exercise of discretion by policemen. We are training them at Aylmer to use more discretion, and I think we’re getting the kind of officer with the educational background in a variety of subjects who will be able to use that discretion. Having said that, I don’t expect my hon. friend from Lakeshore to agree that we’re following the right course. If he has any specific recommendations, I’d be glad to receive them.

Mr. Lawlor: We have very limited time in this debate, and as the hon. minister says we could spend the whole time pretty well over this very issue. I only want to mention Ramsay Clarke’s “Crime in America,” the first portion of which is dedicated to the causes of crime in the society and the second part to the operation of police forces as such, apart from the courts, Crown attorneys and what not, and there’s particular emphasis upon the professionalization of the police forces which you had mentioned a moment ago. I believe this is being done through the auspices of the OPP to some commendable extent.

That would involve, of necessity, a greater self-determination or autonomy, not only on the part of the individual officer but of these highly-trained individuals who will not work under those circumstances if they are given too much direction and there is too onerous a control.

The other day, you said you would update the status report on policing. Have you been able to do that, and have we been supplied with copies thus far?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do have an update of that and I believe there are copies here. Perhaps I could arrange for their distribution to the two opposition critics and Mr. Lawlor. I would be pleased if they could be distributed -- as many as are available.

Mr. Lawlor: Thank you very much. Now, under “analysis, research and planning,” which is the fifth vote --

Mr. Chairman: I’d say to the member for Lakeshore, we’ve really just called item one.

Mr. Lawlor: Oh, you’re just on item one? Okay, we’ll leave it.

Just a word on organized crime, which is an overwhelming issue in this House. I know you’ve taken a minatory position but I suspect your position profoundly. Governments and people in governments always, for their own self-preservation if nothing else, take a sanguine or lordly position with respect to that subject.

Are you aware that one of the Dubois brothers from Montreal recently moved into Ottawa; that the particular spill-over from the Quebec crime commission proceedings is affecting, and has affected, this province? The business of too much secrecy, vis-à-vis this House, and vis-à-vis the general public for that matter, with respect to this organized crime menace that hangs over all of us, the fact it is not given consideration and sufficient disclosure, this hiding behind the veil of secrecy in this particular matter, will do no good so far as the province is concerned.

There must be reposed in the commissioners a very strong area of secrecy, you can’t spill all the beans or give all the information on wiretaps or what not; but we get absolutely nothing. We come cap in hand, begging to learn what extent organized crime has developed or to get some rational statement about it. Some of us over here feel it is a far more serious matter. We will learn in the newspapers some morning, I suppose, when something cracks open. That’s a poor time, either for the government to make disclosures or for us to learn of these matters.

Precisely the reason for these estimates is to do a little digging in this particular respect. I think we should push you a little harder than we have in the past in this particular regard.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: That is one of the disadvantages, Mr. Chairman, of dealing with estimates in the House instead of in committee. Last year we had various people, both from the Ontario Police Commission and from the OPP, answer a few questions on what they were doing to try to enclose organized crime. I can repeat what was said last year. I’ve made suggestions to the opposition critics; and I’m not being critical but the offer wasn’t taken up. I didn’t push it after the estimates were over but neither did the critics ask for any further information.

But I would be glad to take them into our confidences -- more than it would, perhaps, be wise to do in the House -- let them see some of the things we’re doing and talk to the officers who are more closely involved. I would be glad to do that.

[4:00]

You say do I know that this certain person has moved into Ontario. Certainly I, personally, don’t get reports on a day-by-day basis as to the movements of people suspected of organized crime, but the OPP do. I shouldn’t just limit it to the OPP, because we have a joint force working with the various municipal forces. The main one involved, of course, is the Metropolitan Toronto police force, but also the RCMP and the OPP. They work very closely together and I’m sure they know of the movements of all of these people.

As I’ve said so many times, it’s not a case of knowing who is involved in organized crime; that seems to be easy to follow. When one person is taken out for various reasons, either death or imprisonment, the mantle seems to fall automatically on somebody else. From time to time I see reports that say so-and-so has now, apparently, taken over the running of one particular group from somebody else who, as I say, has passed on for various reasons.

Our problem is to get the evidence to convict. You will recall when Quebec commenced its inquiry into organized crime they had a great many unsolved murders which they felt were connected with the underworld. Thank goodness, we in Ontario didn’t have that kind of a problem. Their problem, in regard to violence and that type of thing, was much more severe, at least in my opinion and in the opinion of those who advised me, than anything we had here in Ontario.

Neither the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) nor I have ruled out the possibility and said there are no occasions on which an inquiry into organized crime might be in the general public’s interest. I think it probably was in the Quebec situation. A lot of things were reviewed; a lot were brought to light in that inquiry. But, again, I would remind you that in the case of some of the names that were brought out there, the convictions were obtained in Ontario and not in the province of Quebec.

So our main job is to gather the evidence. Charges are laid from time to time both for drug trafficking and bookmaking. I think bookmaking is one of the most insidious crimes that we deal with, but certainly there have been charges laid on that.

Mr. Lawlor: Loan-sharking.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Loan-sharking. What did I say?

Mr. Lawlor: Bookmaking.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I’m sorry, loan-sharking is what I meant to say.

If the House would like me to bring names and convictions -- that type of thing -- before them, I can certainly arrange to do that from time to time, but by that time it’s not news. Certainly the papers are more on top of it as it’s happening than I am and, therefore, they have it by the time I could report to the House.

In other words, I don’t ask that the police -- and I think it advisable that I shouldn’t -- that they advise me every time they’re going to make some major raid or have enough evidence to arrest somebody. I certainly don’t want that kind of information in my office; I don’t think there’s any need for me to have it. I certainly get it after they have made any arrests of this nature, but the newspapers and media in general have it almost the instant it happens. By that time, there’s not much point in me reporting it to this House.

If you wish me to institute some more up-to-date scheme whereby I could report on what we are doing in the way of prosecutions and following them up, I will try to do so for the advice of the House.

Mr. Lawlor: I think it would be valuable.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: All right, I’ll see what I can do in that regard.

Mr. Lupusella: If I may, I would like to reply with a short statement about organized crime and the way in which the Solicitor General has been expressing ideas and manoeuvres in which organized crime actually is under control.

We had the words, several times; “Organized crime in the province of Ontario is under control.” My main question, and the question which I raised in my opening statement, is how the Solicitor General can justify the statement which has been made by the federal Solicitor General, Mr. Francis Fox, trying to tell policemen in Toronto that they haven’t been doing an adequate job in fighting organized crime.

There is a contradiction in the statement which was released when the CBC broadcast a program about organized crime and the statement that was made at that time by top police officers that organized crime in the province of Ontario is under control. The question is why there is such contradiction that Mr. Francis Fox is coming from Ottawa, stating that we didn’t do an adequate job. Can I have an answer to that?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: You will probably have to get that answer from Mr. Fox. As I said, we are working very closely with the RCMP, and I suppose it is a matter of one person’s opinion as against another person’s opinion as to when anything is under control.

I don’t get, from talking to the RCMP, that they believe organized crime is not in control in Ontario. You can ask, is any crime ever in control? As far as I am concerned, if crime exists to any extent it’s out of control. The question is, is it sufficiently under control to take more drastic steps such as have been suggested, by way of some inquiry? All I am saying is that we would lose more by a public inquiry than we would hope to gain.

Certainly murder is not under control in this province in that we have a good number of murders, although I think the statistics show that they were down last year over the previous year. We have still got too many murders, because one murder is too many. So, depending on whom you are talking to, murder is either under control or out of control.

The same applies to any crime, and I think you can follow that through into the field of organized crime. I have admitted that there is organized crime here in the province of Ontario. When we obtained that $1¼ million I gave a very quick rundown on some of the places where it was operating and the fields it was getting into. I am suggesting that organized crime is no greater here today than it was two or three years ago. Does that mean it’s under control? As far as I am concerned, as I say, as long as it exists it is not under control, but I think it’s under control sufficiently that we are currently dealing with it in the best possible means that we can employ.

We are always looking for better ways to deal with organized crime. The suggestion of the opposition, and about the only constructive suggestion I have heard in this regard, is to deal with it by a public inquiry. I am saying to you that the advice of my officials is that that would not be helpful at this time. But if you can suggest any better ways to control it, other than the methods the police are currently employing and apart from a public inquiry, I will be very happy to have those suggestions and will seek the advice of the police as to carrying them out.

Mr. Cunningham: I have a few brief general comments relating to the Ontario Provincial Police, and I would ask your indulgence in this regard, Mr. Chairman,

Mr. Minister, I am delighted to see that you are going to resist any move by the executive council to reduce the staff of the Ontario Provincial Police, but I want to say to you that I am concerned about the phrase “until adequate reassessment has been given.” I want to say to you that I hope you might take copies of the debate, both the comments by myself and other members of the House in both the opposition party and the third party, to your executive council to convey to them the extent of support that I think exists for our police force and the concern I know that we all have collectively as it relates to adequate protection for the citizens of the province of Ontario.

The speaker just prior to myself made reference to organized crime, and I must say I share his concern. In these times of increased crime, to reduce the Ontario Provincial Police would be a retrogressive step to say the least. I know in my constituency we rely tremendously on your police force and I have come to appreciate them and know them by name, not only having been stopped on the highway on the odd occasion to be reminded that I might be speeding -- in fact, I was reminded once in a very tangible way that I was speeding -- but also to maintain law and order.

Mr. Lawlor: How tangible?

Mr. Cunningham: About $35 worth.

Mr. Maeck: How many points?

Mr. Cunningham: I know in communities such as mine that the smaller and rural townships have come to rely on and appreciate the Ontario Provincial Police in a way that people possibly residing in the Etobicoke area could never appreciate. Notwithstanding the fact that the general policing responsibilities in my constituency now are the responsibility of the Hamilton-Wentworth police force, many citizens still are inclined to call the Ontario Provincial Police first because they know that they can count on them. Secondly, they know they can find their way around the rural areas on a continuing basis.

They are charged with the responsibility of highway traffic enforcement on that large Highway 6 that runs through my constituency and also on Highways 2 and 53 where we are having, I must say to you, some problems with enforcement. I think that is specifically a problem where there aren’t enough members of the force to adequately cover it. I know that the members of the force are aware of the tremendous problem that exists there and I am sure you will direct that their continuing attention is given to adequate enforcement on that rather dangerous stretch of highway.

I can only say to you that in my view there seems to be some sort of duplication between the regular police forces in the outlying communities and the Ontario Provincial Police. I think there are some cost efficiencies that might be obtained by restoring some of those responsibilities back to your police force.

I was wondering if you have any statistics at the moment that you could either send me now or at a later date that relate to the cost per capita of policing in these outlying areas so that I might make some reasonable comparison with regard to policing costs per capita in constituencies that are administered by their own local police forces. I would find that information very valuable.

Before I take my place, I would encourage you to possibly direct your officials to maintain a more constant vigilance on Highways 2 and 53. This has been a matter of great discussion with myself, citizens of my area, citizens of the village of Alberton and the town of Ancaster, and the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow), who until very recently was reluctant to accept our point of view. Effective enforcement of the highway speed regulations and the various other regulations of the Highway Traffic Act, I think, will contribute greatly to reduced levels of accidents on that stretch of highway. I would encourage you to see that that vigilance is maintained.

Mr. Worton: While the minister is getting some facts on this particular issue, he is well aware that on Saturday night I had the opportunity to attend a retirement function for a gentleman who had given some 30 years to the OPP in the various parts of Ontario, and in the last 10 years in Guelph.

The minister indicated to me that he would be happy if I brought greetings on behalf of his ministry and the government. I felt maybe I was stepping into something that had been unknown to me before. I did open my remarks by saying that I felt something like the cattle thief that was about to be hung. As he walked up the steps, he said to the fellow, “take it easy, this is the first time this has happened to me.” Sure enough, he was right. I soon learned after a few remarks that there had been an announcement made that day that there was going to be a cutback on the staff of the OPP.

After all the events were over, I talked with many of the men of his agency there, of the OPP. Like the previous members, I would be very concerned if these steps were taken because I think it's the wrong time for your ministry to be instituting cutbacks in this force. I would like you to take back to your executive body the reaction I got from the calls on Sunday. Perhaps it is because there are a lot of people who know me and call me first-hand. I was certainly made aware of the feelings of the public. Quite frankly, until I got there on Saturday I was unaware of the situation. I thought that maybe it was the Toronto police that was undertaking his cutback.

[4:15]

As I mentioned earlier, and the other two members have mentioned, you should take a very serious look at this and talk to those other ministers who sit around you. Put your foot down and say that we want to maintain our strength and maintain the effective force that we’ve had in the past.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Minister, would you like to reply at this time?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I’ll try to do that. I was asked about the cost per capita and my information is $54.08 per capita; the information pertaining to operation of police forces in the province of Ontario, $54.08.

Mr. Nixon: That’s all forces?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: The information that my deputy has given me is that that is OPP. The total of municipal forces per capita cost, $47.44; Metro and regions, $48.72; villages, towns et cetera, $35.47. Those must be averages when you’re dealing with the regions.

I think Metropolitan Toronto was the highest. I don’t see that right here. I know we have it, because I was reading it the other day and it runs in my mind that the city of Toronto was up in the $60 figure per capita. The OPP is $54, and, of course, it varies from municipality to municipality on a per capita basis.

I know the problem that the hon. member for Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham) was speaking of in regard to traffic and speed limits. There were a great many complaints in connection with Highway 2 running through your riding where the people, because of a number of accidents which had occurred there, felt that they were not getting sufficient policing.

As a result of that, we did put more police patrols on. The OPP tries to regulate its supervision with radar and that sort of thing, depending on where their experience would lead officers to say which are the most dangerous and the highest risks, and that was one. I think as a result of their additional surveillance of it there was less speeding, naturally, and greater enforcement. I hope the people there are a little more satisfied with conditions as they presently exist, as opposed to what they were before the present tightening up.

I have a good number of letters from the general public recently talking about the saving of energy and abiding by the 50 and 60 speed limits respectively, depending on what road you’re on. Again, I’m back into miles rather than kilometres, but in any event, a number of them have counted the number of speeders that have gone by.

I think I’ve had about 10 letters along this same line, saying they have been travelling at the speed limit and they have been counting the number of vehicles that passed them at certainly much greater than the speed limit. I have, of course, replied to these along the line that we are doing our best.

There was about a 60 per cent increase in the amount of traffic tickets issued last year as compared with the previous year. Of course, I quote them that figure. Getting the people down to these lower speed limits is going to take a great deal of time. Certainly they are travelling at lower speeds than they did when the speed limit was 10 miles greater than it presently is.

I believe the public is being educated, particularly through the greater number of tickets that are given. As I say, it’s about a 60 per cent increase over the previous year since the speed limits were reduced.

Mr. Nixon: Might I ask the minister if he has specific information that the average speed is down, or is that just his impression?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: If you ask me have I got a report that says what the average speed on the road is, no, I haven’t got that. We can certainly get something more specific. I’m just looking at the fact, from my own experience I guess, in travelling Highway 400, when I myself used to travel a few miles over the speed limit, many people went by me at that.

Now if I’m still a couple of miles over the speed limit, there are a few people who are still going by me, but not at the great speeds they used to go by me. So I think we have reduced the average speed by about 10 miles. But that is an impression, you are quite right. I’m using my own observations in my own driving rather than the statistics. So when you pin me down, do I have a report from the police saying it is 10 miles lower; no I haven’t. But I do have a report from the police saying that we have issued 60 per cent more tickets at the reduced speed limit.

I don’t know whether I can get that other kind of information. I doubt if they’ve made that --

Mr. Nixon: I doubt if it exists.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I doubt if they have made that kind of survey. I don’t know how they would, exactly, without knowing how much --

Mr. Cunningham: Especially the trucks.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: -- without knowing how much the average speed was before over the speed limit.

Mr. Nixon: They’ve just made a lot more lawbreakers; they haven’t really reduced the speed.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: No, no; I would disagree with that. I think they probably could give you some information on the amount over the speed limit they’re now clocking people at, as compared to what they were clocking them at before. I think you will find it is about the same percentage over, but I would have to get that for you. I don’t have it.

Mr. Nixon: Do you go over the speed limit in your government car?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Very rarely, sir, very rarely.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Nixon: I find that shocking.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I must admit that once or twice I have and only when I am driving it myself. The provincial driver never does that.

Mr. Nixon: That is even more shocking.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Is that more shocking? I will have to take the blame. But very rarely, very marginally.

Mr. Nixon: Just by a mile or two; pardon me, a kilometre or two.

Mr. Chairman: Would the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk please keep in order.

Mr. Nixon: Not when you are talking about OPP and the speed limit.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: The hon. member has put me completely off here. I did want to mention Waterdown. I was in the riding of Wentworth North as recently as yesterday.

Mr. Nixon: You’re wasting your time.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I was just through there to observe the beauties of the riding.

Mr. Cunningham: Certainly is.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I went to the rock garden, and then up from the rock garden I took a nice little road I hadn’t been on before that led up to Dundas Street. But in the process I went -- I guess it was the old Guelph Road I travelled on -- in any event I went by the old OPP Waterdown detachment building there. They ran a good detachment there and that is in the process of being turned over to the regional police.

Mr. Cunningham: Sad.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: It may be. The Hamilton-Wentworth regional department is a good force. We will still be patrolling the highways in that area, but gradually they have taken over the other policing duties.

Mr. Cunningham: Did you sell the building?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: That is still under the process of negotiation; of course it won’t be my ministry that will do it, it will be Government Services.

Mr. Nixon: You don’t have anything to worry about there, George is bidding at $5.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I think they want it for $2. I think the building is in much better shape than $2. However, I won’t comment on whether they should get it for $2 or $2 million --

Mr. Breaugh: Better be careful John Rhodes doesn’t get hold of it. It will cost you more than two bucks.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: We want, in any event, to co-operate with them and see that a police detachment of some sort is maintained in that place. As you know, we will be continuing to do the provincial highways in that area.

Mr. Cunningham: I am just wondering, Mr. Chairman, has the minister undertaken to see that all the speedometers have been changed and all the speed detecting equipment has been changed to reflect our new metric speed limits? And when did that take place if it did?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: You mean in the provincial cars?

Mr. Cunningham: Yes.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: The OPP have certainly changed all of theirs with the new signs on them. Of course most of them had, I assume, the new kilometers marked because they are fairly recent cars that most of the police drive. Certainly I personally haven’t examined them all to see if that has taken place, but they have had extensive information and instruction on the metric system and how it affects their problem with traffic control. So I think that has been done, but I can’t say that I have personally examined them.

I just wanted to mention the comments of the member for Wellington South (Mr. Worton) on bringing greetings to his riding last week where an officer from the force was retiring. I thank you for extending those greetings. I didn’t know when I asked him to do that that he’d be walking into the hornet’s nest that he did.

Mr. Nixon: He blamed it on you.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I am sure he would. I can’t say anything more. I spoke on it earlier. I don’t think it’s about to happen and certainly we in this ministry will resist it for the many reasons that I gave earlier. I am sure you defended me well, and thanks for doing it.

Mr. Maeck: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of little things I wanted to speak to the minister about on this particular vote. The minister and I have talked about these things before, but I was intrigued by the fact that he mentioned that his own personal position was that he feels that more warnings could be used rather than charges.

I was a member of the OPP for eight years and I recall when I took my training here at 13 Queen’s Park Crescent, where the Frost Building is now, there was an instructor there by the name of Bill Oliver, Sergeant Oliver, and one of the things that I recall him telling the class at the time was that a policeman is not judged by the number of charges he lays but by the absence of crime in the community he serves. I think that is still good today.

When I was on the OPP originally, when I first started out, we were given a lot of leeway. We used our own judgement and we didn’t have too many NCOs standing over our shoulders telling us what we should do or shouldn’t do. We had enough to get some advice from, but it really was a matter of a policeman making his own judgement on many things.

Mr. Nixon: What year was that?

Mr. Maeck: It was 1949 when I joined and I resigned in 1957.

Mr. Worton: Better than politics?

Mr. B. Newman: Better than politics?

Mr. Maeck: Well, I’ll tell you, it was a little easier. The pay wasn’t too good in those days. Anyway, to give you an example of what I am talking about, it’s not so long ago that I had a constituent come into my office and this gentleman was, I believe, 68 years old. He had become involved in a minor accident. A lady had backed out of a driveway and into the back of his truck or something such as that, and the lady was charged with an offence under the Highway Traffic Act. In the investigation, the police officer suddenly realized that this gentleman had not changed his address on his owner’s permit and immediately gave him a summons for $28.

In my day, we would have probably said to that man, who was a local person -- he’d