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

July 4, 1977

31st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L008 - Mon 4 Jul 1977 / Lun 4 jul 1977

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FIRE SAFETY IN JAILS

ROBARTS REPORT ON METRO

OMB HEARINGS

OHTB BUS LICENCE

WILD RICE HARVESTING

RENFREW NURSING HOME

WCB CLAIMS

SAFETY IN WORK PLACE

TOURISM

DISABILITY PENSIONS

PCB SPILL

MACLAREN HOUSE NURSING HOME

RESPIRATORY PROBLEMS

MERCURY POLLUTION

LOTTERIES

POLICE COMMISSIONS

ORGANIZED CRIME

INVERHURON PROVINCIAL PARK

HYDRO CONTRACTS

PSI MIND DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE

BECKER MILK DISPUTE

PICKERING AIRPORT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE CROWN AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PERSONAL PROPERTY SECURITY AMENDMENT ACT

THIRD READING

ONTARIO YOUTH EMPLOYMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY

Mr. Speaker: In accordance with

section 82(2) of The Legislative Assembly Act, I am today tabling a copy of an order in council naming the following hon. members as members of the Board of Internal Economy: Hon. Mr. Welch, Hon. Mr. Auld, Hon. Mr. Henderson, Mr. Maeck, Mr. Breithaupt and Mr. Deans.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

Mr. Speaker: In accordance with provisional order 36(e), the Clerk of the House has today conducted the ballot for precedence for the calling of private members’ public business and has today laid a copy of the list on the table.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FIRE SAFETY IN JAILS

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I have the answer, by way of a statement, to a question asked of the Premier (Mr. Davis) in my absence in Ottawa on Tuesday of last week. The question was:

“In view of the large number of prisoners in Canada who have lost their lives over the past year while in prison, what investigations if any are being done with respect to safety features for prisoners in provincial penal institutions in the event of fire, and particularly in the older, district jails?”

The issue of fire safety raised by the member for Nipissing (Mr. Bolan) has always been a continuing concern of the staff of the Ministry of Correctional Services, and especially so in the older physical facilities which we have been replacing since assuming responsibility for them from counties and municipalities in 1968.

The three main areas of activity are: (1) rapid means of controlled egress from a facility in the event of fire; (2) staff training and development courses in the appropriate techniques; (3) as a result of recent experience, the physical provision of fire-retardant mattresses.

In terms of physical settings, our priority has been the former district and county jails of which the member speaks, together with all segregation and maximum-security areas in our more modern facilities from which egress could be difficult in the event of fire.

For example, the recently expressed concerns of the Toronto Fire Department in respect of the Toronto Jail have been complied with in almost all respects and we are working with the building committee to deal with its concerns as welt

More generally, throughout the province, whenever public institutions inspection panels report, their recommendations receive our immediate consideration. We invariably advise the sheriff in each location of what has been done to implement the PIP suggestions. Like the grand jury system before it, the public institutions inspection panel system is working very well. The panel members bring a necessary community perspective and make valuable recommendations. If, for any reason, a suggestion is impracticable, we tell the sheriff exactly why we believe it to be so.

After extensive research examination of mattress materials by the Ontario Research Foundation, we have adopted for use in our institutions a new type of fire-retardant mattress which we believe is constructed of the most effective fire-retardant materials available at present.

Meanwhile, private industry is working all out to deliver our initial orders for mattresses to our specifications. Distribution of these new cotton core mattresses has been evenly spread out throughout the province to maximum production capacity, and every provincial jail has now received its initial shipment of the new mattresses. Deliveries will be continuous, with segregation and maximum-security areas getting top priority, and with medium and minimum security facilities following in that order.

There are no padded cells anywhere in the facilities of the Ontario Ministry of Correctional Services, so that the question of replacing polyurethane wall materials has not arisen here.

It would not be in the public interest to fully describe to the Legislature the means we have adopted for the safe, rapid and efficient egress of inmates from our facilities in the event of fire, because to do so would involve serious security problems. The arrangements we have made represent a balance between individual and public safety -- the optimum balance in each separate institution. No two institutions are alike in the precise arrangements we have made.

I’d also point out that we are subject to independent inspection by competent fire and police authorities in this area of our operations.

Staff training and development is proceeding apace, both in the field and at the ministry’s regional and central staff training centre, with strong emphasis on the latest techniques and drills. Whenever incidents occur anywhere, there is a rapid and full exchange of information. Teaching and training materials and methods are exchanged and adapted as necessary to Ontario conditions.

At the field level, each institution is required to carry out a fire drill monthly, to have a fire equipment list available, to have a floor plan showing locations of all exits and fire equipment, together with the fire prevention and safety instructions.

In addition to the regular monthly fire drills, each institution must in future mount an additional fire drill during some of the frequent visits of our inspectors to our centres. These additional spontaneous drills are expected to contribute significantly to staff preparedness.

In all Institutions, staff members are required to test and visually inspect the alarm system weekly, and the firefighting equipment monthly. Backing this up, the Ministry of Government Services or a contract agency inspects the alarms and equipment annually. The local fire department safety inspector is invited to inspect the facilities within his area annually. Ministry of Government Services property management branch safety officers also visit Ministry of Correctional Services facilities regularly.

When they do, they also examine fire equipment along with general building safety, checking each piece of fire equipment to see that it is of the proper type and in the proper location, according to fire legislation and codes.

All institutions are required to have a fire safety and accident committee, which must meet monthly to review the institutional situation.

Finally, all our institutions are equipped with an MSA air mask for evacuation purposes. Each institution has implemented a staff training program in its use on an intensive and priority basis, in co-operation with the local fire department.

Co-operation with the local police and the fire department staff is quite close, with both groups going through our institutions for familiarization tours.

Even with all the precautions we have taken, members should recognize we are dealing with a volatile segment of the population, sometimes containing violent and unstable elements. We are taking every precaution and have expedited and enlarged our staff training in safety areas. I appreciate what my predecessors in this portfolio have done and I intend to continue to update and modernize our facilities and equipment as rapidly as is reasonably possible.

ROBARTS REPORT ON METRO

Hon. Mr. Davis: This morning the Hon. John Robarts -- actually it was early this afternoon -- was kind enough to present me with a copy of the report of the royal commission on Metropolitan Toronto. It is a sincere and signal pleasure for me to now table that report in this assembly. I might also point out to the members of the House that Mr. Robarts, together with learned counsel and the secretary of the committee, are in your gallery, Mr. Speaker, learned counsellor being Mr. Rohmer and secretary to the commission, Mr. Cameron.

Mr. Breithaupt: It would be nice to have him back.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It might be a good influence on the member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: It could be.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It might be an improvement.

The report of this royal commission, copies of which are being given to the members, is of great significance, not only because of the important issues it addresses but because of the stature of its author. It is, I think, particularly fitting that John Robarts should be the author of a report on the government of one of North America’s great cities. He began his career in this House in 1951 almost at the same time as the process which led to the establishment of Metropolitan Toronto was begun.

As Premier 12 years later, he recognized that changes had occurred in Metro and that if Metro were to remain a world leader in urban government, it must adapt to those changes. He therefore commissioned Carl Goldenberg to review Metro, and it was Mr. Robarts who, after intensive public debate, introduced the legislation that resulted in the Metro government we have today.

I trust the House will indulge me if in tabling this report I take the time to set it in historical perspective. Metro has benefited from a system of local government unparalleled in any of the word’s cities. It has been and continues to be a vital and flexible system of government meeting the challenges of unprecedented growth and change as they arise. The fact that the original structure of Metro was not cast in stone but was modified and reformed as the need arose speaks highly of the people elected to serve in Metro and of the system itself.

On April 15, 1953, Metro Toronto came into existence. It was detached from York county following an exhaustive examination of the problems of the urban and urbanizing area carried out by the late Dr. Lorne Cumming. It was a federation of the 13 southern municipalities in York county and was given the power to deal on an area-wide basis with the services associated with rapid physical development of the area. By 1957, a commission of inquiry was able to pronounce Metro “a sound and practical approach to an acceptable and workable solution.” When viewed in relation to the chaotic state of most major North American cities, this was indeed high praise for Metro.

By 1963, when Carl Goldenberg began his examination of Metro, the need for some change was becoming apparent. He endorsed the Metro system but suggested a refinement of it to reflect the greatly increased mobility of its residents and the resulting increased interdependence of its units. On January 1, 1967, Metro, as we know it today was brought into being.

Times have changed once more. The days of rapid growth having largely passed, we are now faced with managing our urban areas in very different conditions. In 1953 and again in 1967, the changes wrought in Metro were designed to provide the services a growing metropolis needs. Now we are more concerned with the definition of the political institutions themselves. Can our urban government be held to account for their decisions? Can they assess and set priorities for the use of their resources? Are they accessible and responsive?

I have not yet read his report but I know how much effort and thought Mr. Robarts, his staff and all those who have contributed to the study have put into these and other questions and I am confident that the report will provide us with a basis for continued progress. Metro has been a leader in its form of government and has provided lessons for other municipalities over the years. I am sure that Mr. Robarts’ report will continue this trend and that the leaders of local governments in this province will look to his report as a reference as they seek answers to the governmental problems in their own areas.

[2:15]

In order that the report of the royal commission on Metropolitan Toronto can be thoroughly discussed by all interested parties before the province makes its decisions on it, the Treasurer has called for briefs and opinions to be submitted to him by October 30, 1977. I want to add my voice to this suggestion.

A great many people have an interest in the way Metro is governed, as witnessed by the interest generated by Mr. Robarts’ study. It is incumbent upon all those people and groups to examine Mr. Robarts’ views and let the government know of their reactions. These briefs will be studied carefully and I hope that by the spring of 1978 the province will be in a position to propose specific action on the Robarts report.

I know that this assembly will join me in thanking Mr. Robarts for his unstinting effort on this royal commission. It represents just one more example of his contribution to Canadian public life. While thanking him for his past service, I also want to wish him well on a proposed new and vital task.

If the press reports are correct, the Prime Minister of Canada has selected well in asking Mr. Robarts to advise him on those crucial matters related to Canada’s future. His immense contribution to Canada over the years established him as a great Canadian statesman. No lesser man should be called upon to help bind this country together today.

In some respects, the task on which he is embarking is similar to the one just completed. He has evaluated the political institutions that make up Metro and proposed changes to meet the challenges of the next decade. On a much broader front he will now be doing the same for Canada and its political institutions.

Mr. Speaker, the Hon. John Robarts has devoted much of his life to public service and has served this province well. Indeed, he has already contributed greatly to Canada and to the Canadian Confederation. Mr. Robarts has faced many challenges. Perhaps the one he now confronts is the most critical of all. I can assure him of this assembly’s support and encouragement in his new role.

OMB HEARINGS

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question of the Premier, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the report brought down by Mr. Comay and now the report by the Hon. Mr. Robarts have both confirmed the kind of criticism that we have been making regarding the delays and high costs resulting from the Ontario Municipal Board approval process and both recommend a curtailment of the Ontario Municipal Boards powers, is he planning to move quickly to curtail the powers of that board, at least insofar as Metropolitan Toronto is concerned? If not, can he give us some indication as to what his intentions are in this regard?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I haven’t read the report nor have I discussed it with Mr. Roberts. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has questioned my colleague, the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), on two or three occasions regarding the situation in the city of Toronto and the present hearings of a specific bylaw -- or series of bylaws, I’m not familiar with all the legal niceties.

The part that concerns me, though, about the general direction of the questions is perhaps a lack of understanding that the hearing really is partially related to those people who are seeking exemptions from the bylaw, or differences from the bylaw, and if one were to curtail the activities of the Ontario Municipal Board and if we were to say by some legislative process that the city of Toronto would have total responsibility for its own bylaws and official plan amendments without some review process whereby an individual property owner could appeal the bylaws being proposed, then I’m not just sure how this mechanism would work.

The part that I don’t know that has emerged in some of these discussions is that a number of the job opportunities that we talk about in this House relate to those potential projects that certain people are seeking to have exempted from the bylaw.

So, if we were to say, as a government, to the city of Toronto, “You can move ahead with that bylaw; it can go in place,” that may free up certain jobs, but I would say to the Leader of the Opposition -- I’m only guessing at this -- I would think that there would be a number of significant potential projects where the job opportunities would be very great, which is really what the hearing is dealing with, and this is where the problem becomes somewhat complex.

While Comay has suggested and while there may be some suggestion in this report that one curtails the responsibilities of the OMB, I think all members of this House would be reluctant to establish a mechanism whereby a municipality, whether it’s Toronto, Brampton or Hamilton, has the right by way of a bylaw of that municipality to move in and take away certain rights or impose certain bylaw restrictions on the member or me or anyone else as a property holder without some avenue of appeal.

That’s what this hearing at the present time is all about and that’s why the sometimes oversimplified suggestion that we just in some way in this House say to the city of Toronto “do away with the OMB hearing; your bylaw can stand in place,” would in fact discourage some of the economic activity that in potential terms exists and may result because of these bearings. I can’t prejudge what the OMB will say but that’s the difficulty we face when people say restrict the activities of the OMB. what do you say to those people whose rights are being affected in that process?

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, having every appreciation for the fact that any move is fraught with difficulty in as much as there are some people who would like to see the OMB stay in place and some who wouldn’t, the government has now had two reports. Could the Premier tell us whether he intends to move expeditiously on these two rather lengthy, expensive reports by two authorities, Mr Comay and the Hon. Mr. Robarts, to weaken the power of the OMB? Shouldn’t we be considering something along these lines either this session or very early in the next session of this Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I didn’t hear in detail what the Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes) said about Mr. Comay’s report. Certainly as a government we are going to be studying it.

I am not sure whether we are talking about weakening the powers of the board. I think that would be an unfortunate phrase to use. I think what everybody is seeking is a more expeditious way to deal with some of the things that come before the Ontario Municipal Beard.

As I said in my statement, and I think the Treasurer has already indicated publicly, we are anxious to have submissions related to Mr. Robarts’ report. I will certainly check out those portions of it relating to the function of the Ontario Municipal Board. But I just caution the Leader of the Opposition once again that, while a lot of people I talk to would like to see things change with respect to the Ontario Municipal Board, I am still very concerned about the rights of people who can be affected by the municipalities without some avenue of appeal. I would think that the members opposite would share that concern.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: In view of the drift of those two reports that have been cited, and in view of the statements just made by the Premier about respecting local opinions but also respecting their right of appeal, can the Premier explain why the cabinet has decided to order a rehearing and start the whole process off from scratch again of the Pinecrest-Queensway rezoning in the Ottawa area --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That’s not a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We are going into a completely separate question, a different direction. That’s a good question for later perhaps.

Mr. Cassidy: I believe this is germane. Speaker, if I could have an answer from the Premier.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. No, I think we should just restrict ourselves to a supplementary to the original question.

Mr. Deans: Given that the Premier indicated that the report and all of the recommendations were far-reaching in their implications, and I agree with him, doesn’t he feel it might be more appropriate to have the report sent to a committee of the Legislature in order that they could receive the submissions, not only from the affected Metropolitan Toronto areas but also from the rest of the province where that’s applicable, and then have the Treasurer review the recommendations of the committee rather than have the recommendations go directly to the Treasurer?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am only thinking out loud here. I think perhaps the procedure for this would be to have a proposed bill, which would be based upon Mr. Robarts’ report, go to a standing committee of the Legislature. Certainly this would be a very workable and practical way of dealing with it at that time.

I think it is the responsibility of the government to assess this report, to come up with certain recommendations that would flow from it in the form of legislation and then have this legislation go to a standing committee where that committee then in turn can discuss the proposed legislation with those who have this interest, with the various municipalities. I hadn’t anticipated this sort of a question but I think this really would be the practical way of approaching it.

Mr.

Deans: Supplementary: Doesn’t the Premier feel that since the submissions that are made are more likely to be centred in Metropolitan Toronto, since the report itself speaks specifically about Metropolitan Toronto, but since we all recognize that the implications of it are province-wide, it would be easier to have the submissions submitted to the Legislature, to a committee of the Legislature, and allow the Treasurer then to get both the submissions that are being submitted to the committee and the deliberations of the committee before him in order that he might bring forward some concrete recommendations, which he then has understood to have had some widespread, rather than some isolated, discussion?

Further, would he agree that if he chooses not to go that route, at least he will table in the Legislature the submissions of the various groups that are interested, so that we can see them too?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would assume that the Treasurer would be quite prepared to make public whatever submissions are made to him by the municipalities, or whatever municipalities or groups react to it. I think it would be the understanding, of course, that whoever made a submission to the government made it clear to whoever receives that submission that they have no objection to having it made public.

I do point out to the hon. member that I am anxious for members of this House to have as much opportunity as possible to contribute on significant matters of this kind, but the responsibility for government, none the less, lies with the government; and I really think that from a practical standpoint it really is the government’s responsibility to assess the report, receive the submissions and then make a proposal by way of a bill to the members of this House.

If the hon. member wishes to see the submissions -- and I am sure there will be a number of them coming in -- related to this report, I will discuss it with the Treasurer. My own initial reaction is that they probably will be released in their own local community at the same time as they are submitted here, and I see no reason why, by and large, they would not be made available to the members when they discuss whatever it is that the government proposes to the House.

Mrs. Campbell: A supplementary: In view of the fact that the Hon. Mr. Robarts, in answering questions at the press conference stated that he had made certain assumptions based upon statements by the Premier and by the Treasurer, wouldn’t it therefore be significantly better if the whole matter were referred, as suggested, to a committee of this Legislature, rather than to have it go to the Treasurer, in the light of that important statement?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can only think of one statement -- there may have been others, of course -- that I have made or the Treasurer has made as it relates to government policy generally. I know there was one, in a very brief discussion I had within the last half hour with the author of this very excellent report, that was a matter of government policy. If the member for St. George is saying that she has convinced the member for York Centre (Mr.

Stong) that she would like to move, by way of an amendment when we bring in a bill, that the boundaries of Metro take in part of his riding, being in Markham, and add it to a municipality here in Metro, I think that is something she should sort out with that member himself.

I confess, I said some years ago and I have said it more recently, that from my standpoint, and I think the Treasurer said the same thing, we have established three regional governments around Metro. I can recall going back even further than that, Mr. Speaker. I think I said at one stage that as long as I am a member from the region of Peel, Metropolitan Toronto stops on its western borders wherever it is -- I think I then included York -- and also to the east. That’s the only area, shall we say, of policy that I have mentioned. I repeat, I think Mr.

Robarts sensed that his study was to relate to Metropolitan Toronto with its existing boundaries. I should alert the member for St. George that the member for York Centre feels very strongly that it should not go north. I can speak for the member for Brampton, and I think I can say for the members for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory), Mississauga South (Mr. Kennedy) and Mississauga North (Mr. Jones), that they share that same sentiment.

Mr. Nixon: They say ready, aye ready.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s right. No, they say it to me.

Mr. Cunningham: Supplementary: Given that it is going to be over three years before any of these recommendations will be implemented by way of legislation, does the Premier not find that to be a long and cumbersome period of time to respond to the problems that must exist in a local government structure?

[2:30]

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t quite understand the question. I thought I indicated in the statement we hoped to have legislation in the spring of 1978. That, if my calendar is correct, is almost nine months which is a normal gestation period, I think, for anything of great significance, at least on this side of the House. I don’t know about over there.

An hon. member: It’s not quite enough for an elephant, but otherwise it’s fine.

An hon. member: Give us twins.

Mr. Breithaupt: Better nine than five.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can speak five times.

OHTB BUS LICENCE

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question which I hope will be equally pregnant with meaning for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Can he tell us whether the findings of the Ontario Highway Transport Board concerning the Greyhound-Gray Coach matter has been submitted to cabinet? Bearing in mind his promise of April 19 that that report would eventually be made public, could he tell us when it will be made public and explain why it won’t be made public the day he receives it?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I think there are a number of assumptions there, especially the last one. I understand the report is almost completed. The chairman has had a lengthy job in writing the report. I believe there were some 7,000 pages of transcript from the lengthy hearings. As I understand from him, the report is almost ready to go to the printers. As far as I’m concerned, as soon as the report is received back from the printers I’m prepared to make it public. As to the statement by the Leader of the Opposition as to why it won’t be made public the day it is received, I really don’t know what that means.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: I may begin my question by reading from Hansard, April 19, when the minister said: “I can assure him the report will be made public, but I can’t give him the assurance it will be made public the moment I receive it.” What I want to know by way of supplementary is simply has he been in touch with the chairman of the board and indicated to him the fact that this delay is causing a severe loss for a publicly owned carrier each day that the report is delayed? Has he done anything to hurry up this report which has been buried for a rather long time?

Hon. Mr. Snow: There was a somewhat detailed process that the different parties went through following the completion of the hearings. The counsel for Gray Coach had a certain period of time -- I believe two weeks or some such period of time -- to submit his windup to the hearings. He was given the option either to submit it at that time or his two weeks would start from the time the transcript was all complete, typed and ready. The counsel preferred to wait until the transcript was ready. Then he submitted his response, the opposition submitted their response and then he had five days to respond to that before the actual hearing was complete.

Since that time, the chairman has been considering these positions put forward by legal counsel for the two or three main parties to the hearing. As I just stated, the report, I understand, is in its final stages and will be going to the printer very shortly.

WILD RICE HARVESTING

Mr. Deans: I have a question for the Premier. What action does the Premier plan to take with regard to the concerns expressed by Mr. Kelly, the president of Grand Council Treaty No. 3, as they apply to a request by the Manomin Co-operative over the possibility of mechanical harvesters being used to harvest wild rice within the Treaty No. 3 jurisdiction?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I say to the House leader of the NDP that I will endeavour to get an answer for him to that question tomorrow. I can’t give him an answer at the moment because I don’t know the answer but I will get the answer.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary question: In order that the government can take into account all of the problem, has it received communication from Mr. Kelly, and is it ware that Mr. Kelly is vitally concerned that the individual who is going to use the mechanical harvester is out to exploit and rob the native peoples of the Treaty No. 3 area? Is the government also aware that such action will have a very detrimental effect on the economy of the Indian peoples in that area, who are accustomed to growing and harvesting the wild rice and that it is, in the main, the major part of their livelihood?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am very aware of the dependence of the native people of that particular resource. As I said to the House leader, I will endeavour to get an answer to that question for him tomorrow.

RENFREW NURSING HOME

Mr. Deans: I have a question for the Minister of Health. Will the Minister of Health review the recent takeover of the Renfrew Nursing Home with an eye to determining two things: Whether the information I have -- that there has been a drastic cutback in the number of employees as a result of the takeover -- is true; and whether, as a result of that cutback, there is adequate staff provision to take care of the elderly in the nursing home?

And, finally, a question which might be jointly shared by the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Health: Since those employees had been granted collective bargaining tights recently, just prior to the takeover, should some form of successor right be imposed to ensure that employees can’t be fired? Some of them have been as the result of the sale and purchase of the home.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The latter part of the question should properly be addressed to my colleague, the Minister of Labour.

Mr. Deans: I understand that.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: With regard to the standard of care, my colleague, the member for Lanark (Mr. Wiseman), my parliamentary assistant, had a call on Saturday, I believe, from the member for Renfrew South (Mr. Yakabuski) who expressed concern about the difficulties at that particular nursing home. My parliamentary assistant arranged to have an inspector visit the home yesterday.

He reports that everything in the regulations is being met as far as the standard of care, food, staffing and so forth is concerned, but to be doubly sure the supervisor for eastern Ontario is going there today. will report back once we have all the reports, both from the inspector’s visit yesterday and the supervisor’s visit today.

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. minister referring the latter part of the question to another minister?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, there is no answer to the question at the moment. CUPE was the union certified for the full-time employees within that nursing home on May 27 of this year, but the part-time unit’s application was dismissed by the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The takeover apparently occurred during the hearings before the board. I am not really sure what has transpired as a result of this.

At any rate, I do know that there is a single application before the hospital’s arbitration committee, regarding one employee who was “unfairly discharged” -- as he is alleged to have said. That is being investigated at the moment. I am not precisely sure what the status of the contract negotiations is, but we have the division of mediation and conciliation investigating this situation right now.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary question to the Minister of Health: Would the minister investigate, or have investigated when the chief inspector looks into it, the suggestion that they have now reduced the number of staff from 43 to 28, and to make a determination as to how it can be that if it previously required 43 people to comply with the Act and provide the level of necessary care how can they now get by with 28?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The hon. member posing the question really bases it on certain assumptions. I’ll wait for the reports. As I say, the report I had this morning, via my parliamentary assistant, was that in the opinion of the inspector the home was meeting the requirements of the Act and its regulations. But I think it would really be proper for us to wait for both reports to come in and then make an assessment ourselves.

Mr. Deans: Will you make that public?

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary on this.

Mr. Mackenzie: I am wondering if the Minister of Labour, in her response to part of the question, could indicate whether we can expect some kind of successor rights legislation to cover situations like this in the new labour omnibus bill?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I am happy to hear that we are having a new labour omnibus bill. To my knowledge we are having an omnibus health and safety Act, but no labour omnibus bill that I am aware of.

There are successor rights presently protected within the Ontario Labour Relations Act. The extension to a first bargaining situation is something which has been requested in the past. It is a problem which we are examining at the moment.

WCB CLAIMS

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. I wonder if the minister would undertake to make it mandatory for the Workmen’s Compensation Board to notify all injured workers who after eight weeks of making a claim have not received a ruling as to why they have not received a ruling and when they could receive a ruling?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I would if I could, ask the hon. member whether he is talking about a claim or an appeal on a pension, or just precisely what it is he is talking about?

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I said the word “claim” three times. I would ask the minister if she would make it mandatory for the board to notify all injured workers who after eight weeks of making a claim have not been notified by the board as to why they have not had a ruling?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I would gather that it’s a medical assistance claim or a compensation claim based on an injury, rather than a pension that the hon. member is speaking about.

Mr. Speaker, we attempt very vigorously to ensure that all such claims are dealt with as expeditiously as possible. If there are instances in which it is taking that length of time to notify the individual workman that problems have arisen and no payment is forthcoming, then I shall most certainly take the suggestion of the hen, member under advisement.

SAFETY IN WORK PLACE

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware that a major stumbling block in the negotiations of Local 326 Brewery Workers, in the provincial jurisdiction is the question of the safety and health of their members, and that a majority of the injuries that occur in that local are on deliveries to hotels not within the jurisdiction of Brewers’ Warehousing itself, and they are not covered under Bill 139? I’m wondering if there is a chance that we can see this particular loophole in the law plugged so that safety on the job, and not necessarily where you are, is the criterion?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I am aware that the employees of Brewers’ Warehousing have made that specific information available to us, and it is a matter which we are examining in the drafting of the new health and safety legislation. There are many work places in Ontario which are not covered by the present Bill 139 or other Acts which apply to occupational health and safety, and it is our intention, and has been our intention, to examine each of those work places to see whether they are appropriate for inclusion under the Act.

TOURISM

Mr. Eakins: I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism. Given the impression that he left this House with last week, that he as the minister would be content just to maintain a market position in tourism equal to last year’s, which was a disastrous year for tourism in Ontario, can the minister offer any explanation for the drop in visitors to Ontario from outside of Canada for the first quarter of this year, which is down a further eight per cent over the first quarter of 1976?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I don’t think there is any question about it that Ontario does not stand alone in the slump that we’ve experienced in the tourist market. Obviously there has been a reduced amount of disposable income put aside for the purpose of travelling. Even with Ontario’s good advertising program in the United States, and indeed in other parts of this country, we have not been successful in luring into this province an increased number of tourists, any more than they have into a great number of states in the United States --

Mr. Nixon: Who has that advertising contract?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: This past weekend and over the past couple of weeks it appears that there has been a change in direction and that the volume of American tourists coming into this province in the last period of time appears to be on the increase, exactly what we have been working for -- higher spending by tourists in the province.

Mr. Eakins: Supplementary: In the light of the minister’s reply to a question last week on the decreasing number of visitors to Ontario, when he stated that the situation has been supplemented in its numbers by Ontarians staying at home for their holidays, is he aware that in the first quarter of this year, the number of Ontarians choosing to travel outside of Canada has, in contrast to his statement, increased and that the average increase since 1974 has been 8.5 per cent? Is the ministry doing anything to encourage people now residing in the province also to vacation here?

[2.45]

Hon. Mr. Bennett: We certainly are. We’ve been encouraging the tourist promoters, hotels, motels and other people associated with the tourist industry to put together more packages. If one reads the statistics about Ontarians going out of the province in the first quarter of the year -- and I trust the members all realize there happens to be a climatic condition in this province that does not really present quite as favourable an opportunity as it does in other parts of this North American continent --

Mr. Riddell: No, tell us about it.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: As a result, the prices in some parts of the United States are less than they happen to be in Ontario.

Mr. S. Smith: What about all the cabinet ministers going abroad?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That we all recognize. We’ve listened to the third party talk about what it would do to stimulate traffic in the tourist industry by going to a $4 minimum wage position, which would be an even further disaster for the problem we have in this province.

Mr. Foulds: We could certainly reduce the minister’s salary to that.

Mr. Warner: Give him what he is worth -- nothing.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we can learn by the experience of the American market in putting packages together to lure tourists into the particular area where you wish to have them. Ontario has been doing a rather successful marketing job. I think the way the tourist industry has responded to putting package deals together means we’ll see a marked improvement in tourist traffic in the second and third quarters of this year.

DISABILITY PENSIONS

Mr. Swart: I have a two-part question to the Minister of Community and Social Services relative to recipients of disability pensions. First, I would like to ask if he is going to permit income earned by disabled persons above the pension level plus the $60 to be deducted from the pension payable at 50 per cent rather than the 75 per cent, as recommended by his Advisory Council on the Physically Handicapped.

Secondly, recognizing that in reply to my previous question to allow Workmen s Compensation Board disability payments as earned income so they might also be able to retain some income over and above the limited amount that is paid to them, the minister’s reply to that was “no,” because the federal government didn’t permit it, null he be making an approach to the federal government to change that policy?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Both of those matters are under consideration by the ministry at the present time and I will report to the hon. member as soon as I have something further to say on the subject.

Mr. Swart: Supplementary: In view of the fact that this policy has been in force now for several years, doesn’t the minister think there is need for some special consideration with regard to these groups that at this time might require the provincial government at least to allow its share, even though the federal government wouldn’t permit it?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker, I’m not sure what the member is suggesting. If he is suggesting that the provincial government proceed on a non-cost-shared basis in this particular area, then obviously I suppose that’s one option that may be open to us. But I’m not prepared, without further consideration of the matter, to make any specific commitment to him at this time. I would point out to the hon. member that although this policy and agreement between the federal and provincial governments has been in place for a number of years, I haven’t, so please give me an opportunity to look into it a little further.

Mr. Deans: That’s how you happen to avoid responsibilities; change ministers.

PCB SPILL

Mr. Bradley: A question for the Minister of the Environment; In the light of the fact that a leakage of polychlorinated hiphenyls, better known as PCBs -- highly toxic, cancer-causing and difficult-to-eliminate chemicals -- occurred in the city of St. Catharines on June 29, would the minister assure the House that his ministry will take immediate steps to require that all containers transporting polychlorinated biphenyls be lined with protective material designed to prevent leakage?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, tracks or transports hauling PCBs are expected to have special safety equipment so that in the event they are involved in an accident, such as happened in the St. Catharines area, there won’t be the type of spill that apparently occurred. I will look into that aspect of the hon. member’s question. I understand the cleanup has been successful and there hasn’t been any extra contamination as a result of that spill.

Mr. Bradley: Supplementary; Since the cost and inconvenience of the cleanup that occurred because of this spill is a hardship on the particular community involved, is the minister prepared to assist by means of his ministry in the financial aspect of this?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: In a spill of this kind, Mr. Speaker, the company that is responsible for the spill is expected to compensate the municipality in the event the municipality is put to that expense.

Mr. Reed: Does my memory serve me correctly or did the minister not make a statement in this House about a year ago declaring that he was outlawing the sale and distribution and manufacture of PCBs in Ontario? Why are they still being transported within the province?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The member’s question was that there was material containing PCBs -- I believe that was the hon. member’s question. I’m not sure where, in fact, the track was going but I assume that it was for some type of disposal.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary, the member for Niagara Falls.

Mr. Kerrio: Is the minister aware that in that cleanup in St. Catharines the authorities spread sand on it and fired it and that it’s accepted that you cannot destroy the polychlorinated biphenyls until you fire them to 2,500 degrees in a kiln? I wonder if the minister wouldn’t take it upon himself to direct those people who are responsible for cleanups of this nature as to how to dispose of the polychlorinated biphenyls?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The hon. member is talking about destroying PCBs in furnaces -- in some sort of a contained area. It’s difficult to do it in that manner where there is a spill on the highway.

Our information is that the method they use is the safest and possibly the only method that is known to our people. Not only is there a cleanup but there is constant monitoring after that cleanup takes place to make sure that there is no contamination of the surrounding area. The soil will be monitored to see that, in fact the cleanup has been successful. But I will take the hon. member’s suggestion under advisement and discuss it with my people.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Welland-Thorold. Is this a supplementary?

Mr. Swart: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: We’ll allow this final, final supplementary on this one.

Mr. Swart: I would like to put the question to the minister; If I understood him correctly, he said that they expected the trucking company to have equipment that wouldn’t leak. Could he tell us what specific rules there are and regulations with regard to equipment handling these very toxic chemicals?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: My information is that it is a type of transport that is used in the transport of any type of hazardous material. It is contained, and it has certain extra safety devices in the event that the truck is involved in an accident so that it won’t, for example, be easily damaged in such a way that there would be a spill --

Mr. Foulds: But you don’t have standards.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Naturally this would depend to a great extent on the degree of damage. For example there was a truck in northern Ontario that was hit by a train and it’s pretty difficult not to have some type of spill from a situation such as that. But in normal conditions when there is an accident in which the truck turns over, it is supposed to be able to survive that type of accident much more than an ordinary vehicle not having this extraordinary requirement as to hazardous material.

I will be happy to get more details for the hon. member that would indicate the type of transport and the type of enclosure required for this and other types of material.

MACLAREN HOUSE NURSING HOME

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health: I would like to know if the minister can explain to this House why his ministry is permitting the continued operation of MacLaren House Nursing Home as a licensed nursing home under new ownership, when MacLaren House has never melt the standards established in The Nursing Home Act amendments of 1972?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: When MacLaren House was sold recently to a Mr. Bordo, one of the requirements of the transfer of the licence was that the present facility, which is as the hon. member says not up to the standards of the 1972 Act, he replaced. We are presently reviewing plans for its replacement.

Ms. Gigantes: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister explain to the House why all requests to the ministry for information about the future of MacLaren House and another residence, Bellevue Residence, also owned by Mr. Bordo, are met with advice to call the new owner, Mr. Bordo? I’d like to know, in other words, why the ministry continues to leave the major responsibility for planning adequate services for elderly in the Ottawa-Carleton area in the hands of an individual businessman?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, that last assertion is completely erroneous. If the hon. member had ever taken the trouble to phone my office, I would have given her whatever information she required.

Mr. Deans: Why should she have to?

Mr. Cassidy: Why should she have to?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The point of the question is that when the facility came up for sale our staff in the inspection branch met with the prospective purchasers and made it clear that, they were to go through with the purchase, they would have to either bring the facility up to the standards of the 1972 Act or replace it. The sale went through and they are required to replace it. They have filed with our staff, and our staff are reviewing plans for a new facility: at the site of the Bellevue House I believe, to house the people presently in the MacLaren facility.

Mr. Speaker: One final supplementary. The member for Carleton East.

Ms. Gigantes: I’d like to ask the minister why, when I’ve done all I was told to do by the top officials of his ministry, that is get in touch with the new owner, not even he could describe what the new plans for those residences were going to be? Doesn’t he consider it a kind, of inadequate planning service to have a situation where a man controls three nursing homes of the 17 in the Ottawa area within a 40-mile radius but --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think the question’s been asked. It’s almost a repetition of the second one.

Ms. Gigantes: -- ministry officials can’t explain what the plans are for these residences?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The hon. member, as is the style of that party, takes a wide brush and smears all of my staff. That’s typical of her party.

Mr. Renwick: That’s not so. You don’t like being questioned, that’s the trouble.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The member for Riverdale should get off his perch.

Mr. Renwick: I have known the minister a long time and he doesn’t like being questioned.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: If one of my staff has made a mistake or has not given sufficient information, which is readily available, then if the member will let me know who it is then I’ll make sure that it’s investigated. If they are at fault they’ll be reprimanded. But don’t try to smear the whole Ministry of Health. If the member has a complaint with an individual, let me know who it is, and let me look into it.

Mr. Warner: The complaint is with you.

RESPIRATORY PROBLEMS

Mr. B. Newman: I have a question of the Ministry of Health. In view of the recent findings of the report of the Essex County Lung Association indicating that the incidence of all serious respiratory problems, such as asthma, pneumonia and bronchitis, was consistently greater among 50 children tested in the city of Windsor than it was among 50 tested of the same age category and grade category in the city of London, is the minister prepared to implement a fairly substantial and systematic large-scale investigation of the possibility that air pollution may be responsible for the problems associated with the Windsor children as opposed to the London children?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I’ll wait until I have seen the report. I haven’t seen it yet, but I’ll find out where it is and review it.

MERCURY POLLUTION

Mr. Foulds: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. What steps is his ministry taking in view of the research of John Wood of the Fresh Water Biological Institute of Minneapolis that positively indicates mercury pollution can be traced directly to coal-burning power plants? What steps is his ministry taking to see if unexplained mercury-contamination of many lakes in northern Ontario may be contamination by ambient vapourized mercury particles from coal-fired stations in the US and perhaps from Nanticoke?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: As the hon. member now knows, there are a number of lakes in Ontario generally, as well as northern Ontario, where there is no known source of mercury contamination. There is a theory that some of it may be by way of emissions that are airborne from as much as 200 or 300 miles away. We have a group of people who have been working since Fast year, particularly in the recreational lakes, Lake Simcoe and the Muskokas as well as northern Ontario, to see whether air emissions of that kind from anywhere on the northeastern seaboard may be responsible for the high levels of mercury in some fish

That includes all types of Hydro generating stations as well as the known or conventional industries such as Inco, Falconbridge, the steel industries, and industries of that kind where there would be a high degree of emissions over a wide area. Hopefully, we will be able to arrive at some conclusions.

I’m not completely satisfied that a lot of this mercury we’re finding is necessarily from natural rock formation. I think it is from some other man-made source and that’s why we are following up on that. But we are told by the experts that some of these emissions may be coming from as far as 300 and 400 miles away, and therefore the problem would be international in some cases.

[3:00]

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, if I may: If the indications are of a positive nature, what action is the government willing to take or to contemplate with regard to the treaty of 1909 that set up the International Joint Commission, and which specifically agrees to a prohibition of transboundary shipments of pollution? Is the minister’s team specifically looking at the research that is already published from the Fresh Water Biological Institute in Minneapolis?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I would assume they are. I must say frankly I don’t know if our people are aware of or have looked at that specific study. I would hope there’s enough continuous communication between people in this field that they -are aware of it. Certainly it is the subject of continuous conversation and discussion at all International Joint Commission meetings, as well as committees of the IJC, the Great Lakes commission, and other such bodies that are concerned about trans-boundary pollution, and of course concerned about the condition of some of our fish as far as PCBs, mercury and mirex are concerned.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister inform the House what effect his statements today will have and what communications he will have with the Minister of Energy (Mr. J. A. Taylor) with regard to Ontario Hydro’s development of thermal, coal-fired plants at Marmion Lake and the expansion at Thunder Bay?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I don’t want the hon. member to come to some conclusion I don’t intend him to make. All I am saying is that because of the inability to pinpoint the source of mercury in many of our lakes, we are looking at all possible sources. I am not saying that a coal-fired generating station may be a source, or an oil-fired generating station may be a source, but we are looking at these in order to have a complete inventory of any possibility of mercury contamination.

LOTTERIES

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I would direct this question to the Premier because the Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Welch) isn’t here. It’s rather significant and I would like to ask the Premier if he is aware of the difficulty experienced in fund raising by many worthwhile charities and public service groups because of the competition from the provincial lotteries, specifically the muscular dystrophy and multiple sclerosis groups that are now having very great difficulty?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the Minister of Culture and Recreation to get a detailed response for the hon. member for tomorrow. He is not very far away. There have been representations made to me, to other members of the government, and I am sure to some members opposite, with respect to some volunteer organizations and their difficulty in finding ways to raise funds.

I guess the counter-argument, which we have discussed in this House on many occasions, is fine, if the decision is for us to abandon the lottery field will that in turn solve the problem, secondly, does that then do something with respect to our own cultural and recreational programs here? A number of members opposite have participated in these discussions; and they have written supporting various applications. I think the member to the left of the member who asked the question has one or two in mind right now. I just say to the hon. member it is one of the difficulties -- I see him smiling, he knows that I know --

Mr. Peterson: You know everything, Bill.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I don’t; I wish I did.

Mr. Peterson: Yes, you do.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Unlike the member for London Centre, I haven’t reached that point yet I am still trying. I work very hard, I am still trying. Anyway, I will get the Minister of Culture and Recreation to make a response. It has been raised with us by other organizations.

Mr. Peterson: May was a heavy month for Wintario.

Mr. Kerrio: Thank you, Mr. Premier. The Premier led me directly to my supplementary. Is the government prepared to assist such groups in providing much-needed funds for their various health, fitness and related community services if in fact we find that we have taken from them the ability to raise funds?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to try to help any group that has a worthwhile cause.

I give the hon. member a suggestion. Does he know what I did locally? I bought the first new Provincial Lottery ticket, but I didn’t think it would be appropriate for me to keep that ticket because if I happened to win somebody across the House would say --

Mr. S. Smith: The Premier doesn’t need the money anyway.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Anyway, I gave it to the local firemen who were running a telethon for muscular dystrophy.

Mr. Deans: That’s not really a very adequate way, to have everyone buy a ticket and hand them out.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Unfortunately, that ticket wasn’t drawn, so it didn’t reap any rewards for them. But I am quite prepared, within the limits of our budget and government policy, to try and help any group that has a worthwhile cause. The hon. member knows all the limitations imposed upon us; certainly anything we would consider giving couldn’t exceed eight or 10 per cent, or whatever limitations his leader would like to impose on all of us.

Mr. Renwick: Supplementary: What about the Riverdale New Democratic Party Riding Association?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Not very worthy.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I said any worthwhile organization. I don’t think you can extend it that far.

An hon. member: It’s for the needy, not the greedy.

Mr. S. Smith: They are not charitable but they are the handicapped.

As a final supplementary, would the Premier and the Minister of Culture and Recreation -- when they are considering this -- give serious consideration to the possibility of matching funds from Wintario Lottery and from the Provincial Lottery to go to some of these particularly worthwhile projects, and for that matter even to go to the united community appeals, inasmuch as there does seem to be evidence that the Wintario and other lotteries are cuffing into the kind of collection these charities could otherwise make?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not sure the last part of that statement is right. I am not quarrelling with the Leader of the Opposition. I would only make this general observation. I can, perhaps, understand Wintario cutting into those organizations that have traditionally run lotteries. But I would find it hard to understand that because we have Wintario, the Peel United Appeal is less successful. I think that would be a criticism that would reflect on all of us -- if we were to reduce our contributions because there happened to be lotteries available.

I don’t think the answer to that would be to increase the amount going from lotteries to the united appeal. I think the answer to that is, surely, to impress upon people that we do have an obligation to contribute to organizations such as that; and surely we don’t offset that by some form of government grant to the lottery.

Mr. Warner: My question is for the Minister of Health, anticipating that he wants to respond to the question which was redirected to him on Wednesday last by the Minister of Labour, I might only add to that question that the proposal has since been supported by the Hon. John Robarts --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please --

Mr. Warner: Well the question is already in Hansard, but I will repeat it. Is the minister now ready to right the inequities of funding as it applies to the public health boards within the boroughs of Metropolitan Toronto, to raise the funding level from 25 per cent to 75 per cent; and is he now persuaded since Wednesday last -- with the support of John Robarts behind me -- that this should take place immediately?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I have always maintained, as has my predecessor, that we would wait to review the Robarts report on the provision of health care and then make a decision. Maybe you have read the report; I haven’t even seen it yet.

POLICE COMMISSIONS

Mr. Epp: I have a question for the Solicitor General: Because various regional municipalities have requested the opportunity to appoint the majority of members to police commissions, and in view of the recommendation in the report of the Hon. John Robarts to give these responsibilities to Metropolitan council, would the minister consider bringing in legislation in the near future to give the added responsibility and autonomy to regional councils?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I still hope, sometime in the near future, to deal with the Police Act in a general sort of way.

The hen, member is asking specifically about regional governments. The original thought was that we would deal with regional governments after we dealt with the general municipalities concerning the structure of police commissions. However, I don’t know how it happens that so many on the other side of the House seem to have seen the Robarts report; I have not seen it yet. I know we are under-privileged in many ways on this side, but as soon as I have had an opportunity of reading the report, it may be that this will change our priorities.

Mr. Makarchuk: Under-privileged to the extent of about seven members.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to suggest that the minister could have been at the lockup this morning to receive the information.

ORGANIZED CRIME

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney General. Is the Attorney General aware that the city of Toronto’s report on places of amusement and the adult entertainment industry recommends that the province establish a royal commission to investigate the involvement of organized crime in the adult entertainment industry and asks for provincial enabling legislation to help the city to deal with the serious problems created by this industry and its possible connection with organized crime in the city of Toronto? Does he not think that an inquiry into organized crime would assist greatly in deciding on appropriate enabling legislation and action by the city?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is yes; and to the second part, no.

INVERHURON PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. Would the minister indicate the ministry’s view with respect to the removal of the last gas shelter at Inverhuron Provincial Park? Does this signal the closing of the park to public use?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, since I don’t know the details the member is talking about, I’ll check and answer later.

HYDRO CONTRACTS

Mr. Cassidy: A question of the Attorney General, Mr. Speaker. Did an official of the Attorney General’s ministry become aware last spring of evidence suggesting that certain corporations sought improperly to influence the awarding of contracts by Ontario Hydro on its Madawaska and Douglas Point contracts? Did the official inform the minister, and if so, when?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I wonder if that first part of the question could be repeated? I didn’t really understand it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Cassidy: Did an official of the Attorney General’s ministry become aware last spring of evidence that suggested that certain corporations sought improperly to influence the awarding of contracts by Ontario Hydro on its Madawaska and Douglas Point contracts? Did the official inform the minister, and if so, when?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The answer to the question is no, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Warner: He’s full of information today.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Has the minister subsequently become aware of such evidence; and if so what actions did he take?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I’m not aware of any such evidence, Mr. Speaker.

PSI MIND DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE

Mr. Sweeney: A question of the Minister of Health: Before this Legislature closed down prior to the election I asked a question as to the ministry’s intentions with respect to the PSI Mind Development Institute. I have not yet received an answer from either the minister or any of his ministry officials. I understand that the Attorney General’s office has become involved in some way, but we still don’t know what’s happening. Could the minister please advise us?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, this was made dear by my leader, the Premier, some weeks ago, that there is an investigation under way under the auspices of the Ministry of the Attorney General.

Mr. Breithaupt: Supplementary: Will the minister be able to present to the House before the summer adjournment a statement as to the progress so far or as to the intentions of the ministry with respect to this organization?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That should be redirected to the Attorney General, I think, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister redirects it.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to provide the Legislature with a progress report as to how far the investigation has reached, within the obvious limitations that would be upon me considering the fact that it will probably be an ongoing investigation.

BECKER MILK DISPUTE

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Since she now knows, three months after it began, that the Becker Milk Company has no intention of bargaining in good faith nor negotiating in any way, what initiative is she going to use to make sure that both sides are at the bargaining table so that this dispute can be resolved?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the division of mediation and conciliation has been working very diligently with both sides in this dispute for the past three months. If there are complaints of lack of bargaining in good faith, the parties to that dispute know that they can avail themselves of the Ontario Labour Relations Board --

Mr. Cassidy: They know how useless that is.

[3:15]

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- and that indeed they can resolve that problem. I can promise the hon. member that the mediators within my ministry will continue to work as vigorously as they possibly can with both parties to try to resolve this.

Mr. Warner: Supplementary: Since the minister does not have any new initiatives to offer, would it seem reasonable to her that one method of getting Becker’s to the bargaining table would be to ask the cabinet to cut off the flow of milk supply from the Milk Marketing Board to the Becker Milk Company; would she agree that that would ensure that Becker’s would come to the table to negotiate?

Hon. B. Stephenson: It has always been my understanding that the members of the third party were in strong support of free collective bargaining. I am not sure that the kind of stipulations suggested by the hon. member would be a part of that kind of process.

PICKERING AIRPORT

Mr. S. Smith: A question of the Premier:

I wonder if he could enlighten us as to the intentions of his government with regard to the at-the-moment-off-but-perhaps-to-be-on-again Pickering airport? I ask this question in light of the statement on Friday by the Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes) and the statement in March by the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) that the Pickering airport is still very much alive in the government’s thinking.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not sure they phrase it that way at all, really.

Mr. Peterson: Rephrase it your own way.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will. I always endeavour to phrase it in my own way, if the member for London Centre will bear with me, the patient man that he is some days. As far as I am concerned the status quo exists with respect to the Pickering airport.

Mr. S. Smith: Now that he has put it so clearly in his own words could the Premier tell this House whether his government is seriously considering the building of that Pickering airport and the provision of the various services that are required? If not, can he explain the meaning of the statement by the Minister of Housing on Friday that said there is “every possibility of considerable reconsideration taking place as relating to the airport”; and the statement in March by the Minister of Transportation and Communications that the airport might well be built following a study that is presently under way?

Mr. Conway: Remember your national unity call.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh no, we don’t build airports.

Mr. Speaker: Please ignore the interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We help in the northwest and we help in the north. We do build and help with some airstrips, but I have to tell the member that when it comes to the prior suggestion at Pickering we don’t build that kind of airport, we don’t build at Malton. The only point I want to make, speaking on behalf of my local riding, no matter what decisions are made somewhere down the road with respect to Pickering, we don’t want to see any further runway expansion at Malton international.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Motions.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE CROWN AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Kennedy moved first reading of Bill 33,

An Act to amend The Proceedings Against the Crown Act

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Kennedy: This bill is exactly the same as the one introduced at the final session of the 30th Legislature. The purpose is to clarify the law with respect to the right to garnishee the wages of a Crown employee, who is employed by a Crown agency and whose salary or wages are not paid from the consolidated revenue fund, by providing that a Crown agency is subject to garnishment proceedings.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PERSONAL PROPERTY SECURITY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Handleman moved second reading of Bill 24,

An Act to amend The Personal Property Security Act.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, it is a very simple, straightforward bill designed to augment the personal property security system by enabling inquiry on the basis of the serial numbers of the property,

whereas until now it has only been allowed by the name of the debtor.

Mr. Edighoffer: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a very brief comment on Bill 24. This bill, of course, was introduced in the earlier session this year. In the meantime I checked with a number of legal people in my riding who deal to some extent with the personal property registration branch and they certainly feel that the change would allow persons easier access to the information and would lessen the complexity of conducting a search. Today we are certainly dealing with a sophisticated computerized system and we in this party certainly agree with the change.

Actually, this amendment changes

section 44 of the Act by setting out more clearly that the person may search an individual debtor index, a business debtor index and a motor vehicle serial number index.

The only other comment I would like to make is that I just received on my desk the other day a report of the director of land registration for 1974-75-76, and I noticed in that report it was already recorded that this legislation would be in effect. So we in this party certainly wouldn’t want to hinder it in any way.

I know the election delayed the legislation. We will support it, hopefully to streamline the registration and make it much more accessible to the public.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a brief comment. Obviously this bill is simply a rationalization of the procedure under The Personal Property Security Act. We, therefore, would support it, because obviously when a person is making a search he should make the search under the particular record which is kept with respect to the matter which is being inquired into by the person requesting the search.

We, therefore, support the bill. We also agree with the provision that the bill will come into force on April 1, 1977, and we see no need for the bill to go into committee.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Any further discussion on second reading of Bill 24? The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank the spokesmen for the opposition in supporting this bill, and certainly I see no need for it to go to committee either. I think we are unanimous in support of the bill.

Mr. Cassidy: It doesn’t mean we support you.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: You don’t have to.

Mr. Kennedy: The people do.

Motion agreed to.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading on motion:

Bill 24,

An Act to amend The Personal Property Security Act

ONTARIO YOUTH EMPLOYMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resumption of the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 11,

An Act to provide Employment Opportunities for Youth in Ontario.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I’d first of all like to say that I am very pleased to be part of this body and representing the riding that I do, Windsor-Riverside, a riding that has been represented for 10 years by the NDP and I am sure will be represented for many more years by our party.

I am especially pleased to be able to speak on this particular bill as I am probably the only member of the Legislature who fits into this age bracket. Our party supports the bill, but we support it reluctantly because we feel that something is better than nothing.

Quite frankly I’m very surprised at the very limited approach the government has taken to the youth unemployment problem, especially when one considers that 50 per cent of Ontario’s unemployed people fall within this age bracket. As I recall in going through school myself, my parents, my teachers, everyone in our society, encouraged people in the 15-to-24 age bracket to go through school to get a good education. If we did this we were told we’d be guaranteed security in Our society.

Now, in 1977 we see that this just is not true. We see now that many nurses in Ontario, and many teachers, are unemployed. We see the placements out of community colleges are down. Quite frankly, the situation is very critical in Ontario and our young people must be very dissatisfied. Younger people who do not have as much education, who have not graduated from community college or university, are in an even more desperate situation.

Let me give you an example from my practice as a social worker with the Children’s Aid Society in Essex county. I was working with a 17-year-old boy who had been looking for a job. He had left school and was looking for a job for approximately one year and was unsuccessful. During that year he looked very diligently for a job, but pretty well gave up as there were just no jobs to find. During that year the boy got involved in drugs and alcohol, and he also got in trouble with the law by stealing a car. I think that’s something that’s very typical and that if the situation is not remedied very quickly the social problems end the ramifications are just horrendous.

I think anybody who criticizes the bill must come up with alternatives. I have one suggestion: In working with this 17-year-old and many other boys and girls in that age bracket, I found that many of them did not have the basic life skills or job searching techniques. I think it would be very important for a government to introduce a program that would teach people in this bracket how to look for a job, how to keep a job, and just basic life skills.

Secondly, I think it’s very important that there be a job skills program that teaches students what they need to know so that their jobs match the market. Right now we are turning out teachers and nurses, as I have mentioned, and we just don’t need them. If you follow the suggestion of our federal government, I guess they would just all go to another country; as our Prime Minister has said, maybe they can just leave Canada; that’s not our position.

In

summary, then, I think this program will do very little to solve the problem. I don’t think there is any guarantee there will be 20,000 brand new jobs created from this program. In any case, even if there are 20,000, they’re not long term jobs. They’re jobs that will most likely disappear in the fall. So the jobs will be short-term; they won’t solve the unemployment problem for our young people and they are not the approach that this government or this province should be taking. Thank you.

Mr. Nixon: I wanted to make a couple of brief comments on the program, since I’ve had a number of complaints from the agricultural community in my own constituency.

With the news of the program to assist in hiring additional help for summer employment, the first reaction was good, until the farmers concerned attempted to use it. In attempting to prove that the young people they were hiring were in addition to those they ordinarily would have hired, they found that that proof became practically impossible.

The only place where it would apply was in instances where farmers had hired offshore help, usually Jamaican help, in the years previous and this year, instead of the offshore help being hired, because the federal policy is changing and these people are not being allowed to come into Canada for the harvest, they had an opportunity then to hire Canadian people to do the same jobs that were done by others the previous year.

[3:30]

Then, of course, they had a bona fide case in which they were hiring Canadians who were not hired previously and evidently the money was paid. But neighbours who had been hiring young Canadians last year or the year before were not eligible for assistance because the jobs were not new. it’s an instance, it seems to me where the program had been established without sufficient thought. There have been other instances involving the farm community where it becomes obvious that it simply is impossible to apply it in any reasonable and meaningful way.

I wanted to quote briefly from a letter that appeared in the Windsor Star on June 21 under the Letters to the Editor column, entitled: “Youth Employment Program More Tory Window-Dressing?” Of course, I would leave you to answer that, Mr. Speaker, yourself. It was signed by Edith Woodbridge and Edwin Woodbridge. I want to quote briefly from it:

“Sir: We are perplexed about the government’s Ontario Youth Employment Program. As potato growers anti shippers, we applied for student harvest workers in various job descriptions even though the application forms seemed to be ambiguous. We were asked on the form if we had previously hired seasonal student workers and, of course, we had. Now we have received a phone call from a Mr. Ball and an associate who were trying to decide if we qualified to receive approval for this subsidy. After some discussion, they decided we did not qualify but they did not seem to have adequate answers for our questions.”

Without reading the whole letter, I can simply read from the

summary in their own letter.

“Our specific questions now are: How can a farmer create new harvest work of sufficient quantity to engage a person or persons in the above-described time blocks that has never been done by summer workers before? What farmer could replace himself with one or even six untrained students who know very little about farming? What farmer can afford to replace himself as a worker even at a subsidized rate? How can you give a job description of the many special tasks that a farmer does in a day, a week or a season? And finally, will the public even be given a list of those farmers who manage to qualify, along with a complete job description of the jobs filled?”

That’s the end of my quote from the letter from Mr. and Mrs. Woodbridge. It’s a well-written letter and I intend to send a copy of it to the hon. member who is looking after the legislation and applying the program.

I hope he has received other complaints from the farm community, because I feel the concept was a good one as far as stimulating employment in farm work is concerned, and providing at the same time some assistance to hard-pressed farmers who would like to employ young people locally but feel that under the circumstances they cannot manage the expense. I feel that if no changes can be made in the program for this present season, and I would hope certain changes could be made, that there can be an improvement in the situation so that it would be more useful in the agricultural community.

There are many young people who want jobs on the farm and if we can arrange the regulations and the application of the program to encourage that, certainly I, as a farmer myself and as an employer of young people in certain aspects of the harvest, would be very glad to assist.

The last point that I would like to make has to do with my own operation. The time when we employ young people on a per-hour basis is during the hay season and bringing in straw bales to put in the barn. It’s rather haphazard as far as time blocks are concerned and if there were some convenient way whereby this assistance would be made available to farmers -- not myself but to the farmers who operate in our area in this particular way -- then I would be glad to give the benefit of my experience to the minister or anyone else who is looking for ways to amend the bill and the regulations to make it more useful.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the bill, with a number of reservations. The bill itself seems to be extremely vague and the situation with young people is serious enough that you’re almost forced to support anything the minister brings forward that might provide jobs. But really, it is an ineffective, almost Mickey Mouse type of operation. The grants, as I read the bill, seem to be very strictly on application, and the control and enforcement are almost non-existent. I don’t see what kind of an investigative procedure the government will have to ensure there is not deliberate misuse of the program.

I can’t see where the program will provide any permanent jobs for young people. It’s a very temporary measure. The jobs are likely to be almost entirely at the lowest rate of pay, at the lowest pay level. There is almost no way I can perceive of this program leading to any real permanent employment or permanent jobs for young people. I have an uneasy feeling that the program is likely to amount to no more than a taxpayer subsidy to either marginal small businesses or to those well enough established to be able to pay their own way and with enough expertise to take advantage of every tax break that’s possible.

There’s really nothing in the bill that gives any incentive to the development of jobs that have any real purpose, either in a productive way or in a socially useful way. As a matter of fact, I suspect that there is more likelihood of it being used by smaller fly-by-night or non-productive operators than by legitimate businesses. I wonder how many pinball machine operators will be applying for help under this particular bill.

I want to say that the fear, and perception, of misuse is very real and I’m serious when I raise this in the House. I’ve had a number of complaints raised with me already and I’m not sure just how we go about investigating them. For example, self-service gas station operators in the city of Hamilton and restaurants in the city of Hamilton have laid off people working in most cases at the minimum wage and told them to come back at the end of September or early October; and the replacements are mostly students. The people who are coming into these places tell me that the people they’re hiring are students.

Whether or not they’re getting the dollar-an-hour subsidy I’m not sure; but if they are, then it sounds to me very much of a ripoff. I just don’t see what kind of a guarantee we have that such abuses won’t exist; and what is the likelihood of prosecution in the event that they are? The possibility of success in a prosecution is probably even more of a question mark.

Surely there should be a more permanent and more productive approach to jobs for young people. Why didn’t we take a look at this or why couldn’t we? I don’t think it requires an awful lot of ability to take a look at services to people and somehow gear the jobs to older or handicapped or mentally-retarded people. We know there is a problem in the reforestation area. Why couldn’t we put more emphasis in this particular area and have young people’s jobs in this particular field?

The environmental cleanup program is another area where we could have made some direct use of this kind of program and the jobs could have meant something. To business and service operators who provide real service, why not offer an ongoing incentive, for example, to provide those of dedication and proven effort with continuing employment at maybe better rates as they finish the initial period?

Finally, why not also make provisions for the use of this kind of a program for one area that’s caused me an awful lot of problems in my constituency that is those people with physical handicaps of a variety of natures, or epilepsy, who’ve gone through 60 or 70 job searches and still found nobody who would take a chance on them? Why couldn’t we have used this kind of a program with some of the emphasis in that particular area?

Surely a subsidy bill should give hope to some of those in real need and in many cases it could provide surprisingly committed workers. I hope it provides a few jobs. I’m really wondering if we’re not just switching jobs around in this particular bill. I’m amazed at the government’s lack of ability to come up with a really good program that does recognize some of the needs and some of the socially useful jobs that could be pi aced out there to help people who could be placed in socially useful jobs.

Mr. Mancini: I am pleased to rise to speak on this bill,

An Act to provide Employment Opportunities for Youth in Ontario. I would like to take this opportunity to say I’m very pleased that my colleague from Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) read the letter in the Windsor Star as I believe the individuals who wrote that letter were from the great riding of Essex South. I also would take the opportunity to say there are many other farmers in my constituency who brought the same problems to my attention. If this type of program is going to be envisioned as any type of success at all on the farms, I hope the people in charge are going to take immediate action to make changes

I also would like to mention that many of the individuals I know in the service industries, such as restaurants and take-out counters and other businesses of that sort, find it very difficult to use this program. I believe the reason is that due to the tourist season, which is a summer season, business in some sections of the towns and townships of my riding is on the increase and therefore they have to hire more staff, but not necessarily more staff than they had to hire the year before; or else they have had to lay off staff due to the tourist season being down.

If we are ever going to support small businesses and if we are ever going to get serious about helping small businesses, I think that we are going to have to make our legislation tailored around the needs of these individuals I have mentioned.

I also would like to say I have had some of the same problems brought to my attention by the people who operate golf courses. I just wonder whether more consideration could be given to them.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I too want to make a few brief comments on this bill, which previous speakers from our party have indicated we intend to support, but we support it I think rather grudgingly because it is so meagre and inadequate.

Times have changed so dramatically in such a short period of time. When I graduated from school in the mid-sixties we went into a veritable cornucopia of jobs. Jobs abounded for young people in this province. It was only five years later that the first emergency job-creation program for young people was brought into effect by the federal government -- the LIP program. The situation had changed that dramatically in that short period of time. Today, six years after that, we are into what you could call YEP, son of LIP, another temporary and in many respects irrelevant job-creation program.

The tragedy of youth unemployment is not going to be solved by LIP-type programs or YEP-type programs or any other short-term emergency ad hoc programs.

The problem of youth unemployment is not going to be addressed until we begin as provincial and federal governments to address ourselves to the real structural problems of the Canadian economy; until we begin to deal with branch plantism and continentalism; until we deal with the very real facts of the withering of Ontario’s manufacturing industry; until we deal with the folly of our resource management policies which consign us to be hewers of wood and drawers of water for the advanced industrial economies in other parts of the world.

Until we address ourselves to those problems, we are not going to be able to provide jobs for our own young people.

This isn’t the time to get into a full-scale debate about that whole set of concerns. But it needs to be said, or at least alluded to, because that’s the issue and that’s the question that this bill or any other temporary job-creation program fails to address itself to.

I have some very specific concerns that I want to touch on in relation to accountability. Other speakers have expressed the apprehension and anxiety that this scheme, rather than leading to creation of new jobs, will simply be a transfer of existing jobs from presently employed workers to young people seeking summer employment because of the opportunities for subsidization. There are no real accountabilities built into the program to prevent that kind of thing from happening. There will be after-the-fact auditing, as there was with the first-time home owner grants, but it is not good enough.

[3:45]

We have said in this party for a good many years that there is a place for Ontario in manpower policy and manpower programs. We have tried to outline that role as having a special concern for hard-to-place target populations especially vulnerable to unemployment, one of those target populations obviously being young people. There is a role for Ontario in manpower policy and manpower programming with respect to young people in this province. One of the sine qua nons of a job-creation program, it seems to me, ought to be an integration of the program with some kind of placement service. In the long run, we have called for Ontario to set up its own facilities for target groups:

For young people, for ethnic minorities, for the handicapped, for cultural and ethnic minority groups.

In the short term it would be possible to have a program such as this linked with Canada Manpower. There are all kinds of advantages which would have been possible had this program been integrated from the outset with Canada Manpower. There would have been a screening capacity built into the program right from the start to prevent the laying off of currently-employed workers and their replacement by temporary summer students. It would have been possible, secondly, for young people who are looking for work to be able easily to avail themselves of a job in a community like mine, in an urban industrial area, unlike many other parts of the province.

It’s a totally baffling and bewildering process to obtain summer employment, to know where these jobs are, to know how to hook yourself up with a job. It’s entirely feasible for somebody to spend, without exaggerating too much, the entire 16-week period trudging around looking for a place that has one of these wonderful jobs available. It would have made a lot more sense to me had the program been integrated with Canada Manpower right off the bat and these jobs specially earmarked and advertised so that applicants would have been easily able to obtain these jobs.

I think we are going to find that in the absence of an adequate placement facility there have been abuses on a fairly large scale; abuses of job transfer, abuses of layoff, abuses of people taking advantage of the subsidy to replace existing workers and to avail themselves of subsidized and low-cost summer employment over a 16-week period.

Despite all of these derogatory remarks, we intend, nevertheless, to support it on the principle that, as has been said, something is better than nothing; but it’s not much better than nothing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Lake Nipigon.

Mr. Stokes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I would like to compliment you on your election to the role of Deputy Speaker in this House. I know that we served in the last Parliament and you co-operated very well with me. I want to wish you well in your new post and I am sure you will do an adequate job on behalf of all members of the Legislature.

Mr. Cassidy: We hope you match the lustre that the member for Lake Nipigon gave the post.

Mr. Stokes: I want to speak to Bill 11, and it’s very very difficult to speak to a bill of this nature when one would like to draw attention to an area that it doesn’t cover rather than an area that it does. I see the Clerk of the House grinning, knowing full well that on previous occasions I have had to be watchful that people were speaking to the principle of a particular bill.

But I think it is incumbent upon me, as a representative of a riding in northern Ontario with special, specific and unique situations; where in some respects we have the same problems of providing youth employment as is the case whether it be in Bellwoods or Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, but they are unique in as much as it really doesn’t require a subsidy such as is outlined in the provisions of Bill No. 11. It does require a large degree of co-ordination between all of the ministries and agencies of the provincial government in concert with their counterparts at the federal government level, if these job-creating programs are going to work.

One in particular I would have liked to have drawn to the attention of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. F. S. Miller), and it’s most ironic that it doesn’t require a subsidy at all, it requires the dispatching of available manpower to areas of the province where there is a great need for employees. In this case it could enlist the aid of students, whether they be secondary school students or post-secondary school students.

I think it incumbent upon me to remind all members of the Legislature that we are spending several millions of dollars on extra firefighting forces for a contingency or an emergency that was to have developed this summer as a result of very low water levels and predicted very low levels of precipitation. That hasn’t happened in many areas of northern Ontario at the present time. We have expended large amounts of funds and we have people standing by in the event we should have a serious outbreak of fires jeopardizing our forestry resources. Those moneys are being spent by the forest protection

section of the Ministry of Natural Resources when the timber branch of the Ministry of Natural Resources are experiencing extreme difficulty in recruiting a labour force in order to plant thousands and thousands of trees that are going to have to be burned or buried --

Mr. Conway: Along with the charter.

Mr. Stokes: -- yes -- because of our inability to recruit a sufficient labour force in order to perform those tasks.

So on one hand you’ve got the Ministry of Natural Resources spending millions and millions of dollars on emergency fire-fighting forces standing at the ready for fires that really aren’t developing as a result of heavy rainfall in the last few weeks, while another branch of the same ministry is crying for people to plant trees that are going to spoil if we don’t get them into the ground within the next few weeks.

So I’m not asking you to spend more money at all. I’m asking you to talk to your colleagues; particularly in the Ministry of Natural Resources, where if you talk to the district managers, if you talk to the unit foresters, they would give their right arm in order to be able to enlist the services of these people you’re trying to attract. It doesn’t even require a subsidy. You’re talking about offering a subsidy of $1 per hour for every student who qualifies under this program. We have a minimum need of at least 150 people, just in my own area of the province where students can make between $45 and $50 a day planting up to 1,000 trees in an eight-hour period.

It doesn’t require a subsidy. As a matter of fact, if you don’t rationalize your efforts and co-ordinate your efforts with other agencies and ministries of this government and their federal counterparts, you’re going to be sitting by spending millions of dollars on emergency fire-fighting forces that aren’t being used for the purposes for which they are intended simply because somebody goofed -- and I suppose it was the weatherman. On the other hand, you’re going to have literally millions in nursery stock that have been pulled cut of the ground, that have been kept in cold storage, that are going to outlive their usefulness; and you’re losing money on both ends of the spectrum.

So all I’m saying, Mr. Speaker, is that we’re spending an awful lot of money trying to create jobs by this Act to provide Employment Opportunities for Youth in Ontario and all you have to do is get in touch with the Ministry of Natural Resources, all the district offices and say how many youth do you require? All it will require will be a movement up to Geraldton, Terrace Bay, Nipigon, Atikokan or any place where there are district offices of the Ministry of Natural Resources. You will be providing job opportunities for many youths across the province and you will be doing a great service to the Ministry of Natural Resources in allowing them to recruit the necessary staff to plant trees.

In keeping with the recent announcement contained in the charter that was announced by the Premier (Mr. Davis) during the last election campaign, let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, there was a commitment that two trees will be planted for every one cut down.

Mr. Conway: I think that was just Tory hyperbole.

Mr. Nixon: Did that make a great impression up in your area?

Mr. Stokes: That was the impression that was given by the charter.

Mr. Nixon: That’s what it said.

Mr. Stokes: Yes; but I am told the ministry people consider it completely unrealistic, and now I understand the Ministry of Natural Resources is starting to hedge on that commitment.

Mr. Gaunt: So much for the charter. money is involved in this at all. I am offering the government a solution that will provide many jobs for youth in the province of Ontario without spending a cent, other than perhaps a little bit of assistance, even a loan, to get them into the area where we need people so badly for such useful undertaking as planting trees. All I am saying is that if there was some more co-ordination within the various ministries of government we could be satisfying the employment needs of a good many youths across the province and it wouldn’t cost us a penny. All the ministries have to do is talk to one another about it.

Mr. Makarchuk: I just have a few points I wish to make on this bill which stem from my being a member of the public accounts committee. It seems to me whenever the government embarks upon some major giveaway program it always develops into abuses. It seems that every ripoff artist in Ontario manages to take advantage of the program. Part of it -- and this was pointed out in the Auditor’s report -- is the matter of just sloppy mismanagement that goes on when the government embarks on a program that is not well planned, is not well designed and for which it is not prepared.

By and large, in many cases the programs are designed more as election gimmicks or to meet what the government considers rather temporary situations or to alleviate some of the temporary problems. Consequently, what the government ends up with is handing out money to people who really do not deserve the money and who do not qualify under its regulations.

The government’s own internal administration is very sloppy in these cases. This is pointed out particularly in the first-time home buyer’s program. I have a feeling when the smoke on this particular program settles down -- and the Auditor may look at the program, and perhaps it might be advisable to ask him to look at how this program was managed -- we are going to find the same kind of problem developing in this program.

I think some of the recipients of the program, and this has been discussed earlier by my colleagues from Hamilton, do not qualify for it; and some of the people who are getting money are laying off other people in order to take advantage of the program, which as I understand it is against regulations of the program. I would hope this time the government cautions these people and advises them that when the day of reckoning comes, when it has the time

Mr. Stokes: I am just wondering why are we playing around. I don’t know how much and the staff to leek at these things, if they are abusing the program now there is no way they are going to get away with it in the future and that they will be forced into positions where they will have to pay back the money. I think it is advisable to caution them now. It happened in the first-time home buyer’s program where everybody went into it. It looked like a good deal.

Then when they were advised they did not qualify for the home buyer’s grant or some strings were attached or some red tape problems developed, then all sorts of other problems developed. The government ran into a very great difficulty collecting some of the money.

So just a word of caution, I hope the government administers this program in a better way than it did before. There is something about the Tory party in terms of handling public funds that even when it is giving them away it manages to abuse the system, it really cannot do it properly. What I am asking in this program is to try to bring some sense to it now and see where the money goes instead of having to deal with the problem later on.

[4:00]

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, I also would like to pass along my congratulations to you on your selection as Deputy Speaker of the House. I know you will rule with a firm hand and do a fine job for all of us. I for one appreciate the efforts you have put into the job.

I think perhaps the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) and the youth secretary (Mr. Jones) could join together and call themselves Johnson and Johnson, since they, better than anyone else around here, can produce Band-Aids. I have yet to see anything more than a Band-Aid approach from this government towards what has to be the most serious situation that faces this province.

If I take it that the base of an industrial society is the work force, and the base for economic growth is having the citizens at work in useful employment, then I take it this government has a disgraceful record -- particularly disgraceful in light of the fact that this is supposedly the richest province in this country of ours. Yet for all its riches, we are faced with some Band-Aid approaches.

We are faced with trying to rectify a situation whereby annually we have tens of thousands of young people out of work. I don’t know how long it is going to take before the government comes to grips with the real problem. It cannot expect because one piece of legislation supposedly is going to supply 20,000 jobs in a small period of time, that somehow it is going to solve what is a greater problem.

I don’t know how long it will take before this government finally comes to the realization that youth jobs are part of an overall labour picture, that they are part of long-term planning process, and that if one wants to employ specifically students for a specified period of time, the most useful way to do that 15 to involve them in a larger, broader program.

If, for example, we are talking about the development of housing and recognizing that we have a desperate need for an adequate supply of affordable housing, whatever program we set out for the construction of that housing is going to have a youth component to it -- a student component, a

section whereby students will be employed. We are going to plan that; we are going to work out the arrangements with the construction trades involved; we are going to work out the arrangements with the people who are constructing the houses, and we are going to ensure that a certain percentage of the total work force will be students and that they will have a specified number of jobs to perform over a particular period of time. The same would take place in reforestation and in every major

section of our economy.

There is a drawback to it, a very serious drawback. To date this government has never recognized that it has to have development of secondary industries related to the natural resources. Until it comes to that, until it is ready to settle upon developing those secondary industries and having some Canadian control over them so that it is not going to allow those jobs to be drained off to the United States, then it can’t ever address the total problem of helping to employ students. It can’t possibly do that.

If, on the other hand, the government can take a firm grip of the whole thing and can say it is going to ensure those secondary industries are developed, and it is going to ensure the jobs are here in Canada and they are not exported to Norway and the United States and Japan, then it frees the government up to make the kind of planning that it needs to make. That frees it to plan out those jobs.

They needn’t all be in the summer. No one ever said they had to be. The government probably realizes now that many school systems have started into a semestering system whereby students are freed up at various times of the year, not just in the summer, and that there are certain types of jobs that lend themselves to being done in times other than the summer.

But the government has ignored all of that. Instead it has concentrated on the Band-Aid we have in front of us. My fear is that this can he used very easily by someone to ripoff the government.

It’s very important that the dollar subsidy is not going to the student but to the employer. Because you offer an extra dollar doesn’t mean that a student is going to get more than minimum wage. In fact if it is possible for an employer to do so, he will hire at the lowest rate possible, which could be part-time students. The student is going to work 40 hours a week -- for whatever, 16 weeks -- and get classified as part-time and be paid less than $2.65 an hour; and the company is going to get $1 an hour. It’s costing them what -- $1.50 an hour to pay the student? If there is some way to relieve full-the workers of their jobs that’s what will happen.

Someone mentioned there’s a very legitimate -- I know, the secretary’s all upset over there because he looks on page 3 and sees there will be inspection and there are powers of the inspector. But I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it is entirely possible for someone to say, “Business fell off in the month of June and I had to let someone go. I had to let two or three people go. But miraculously, business picked up in July and so I had to hire more people and I hired those students who would be subsidized by the government.”

That’s all very convenient and I don’t know how you prove that’s an incorrect or an invalid statement. I suspect it’s a very difficult job for whoever is doing the inspection to prove that the person’s statement is incorrect, to prove that business did not fall off and that he was undermining the work load and the work efforts of the people who had previously been hired full time. I think it’s a very dangerous situation.

What disturbs me more than the potential abuse -- because one way or another through the public accounts committee or whatever that abuse hopefully is going to be turned out and dealt with and those people who inflicted the abuse upon us would be dealt with properly -- what bothers me more than anything else is the principle of this whole thing. I think it’s wrong that we should segment student work; deal with one year at a time or one season at a time; with no continuity, with no sense of where we’re going, no sense of what the purpose behind all of this is.

What is the government trying to do? Is it trying to keep students off the street? It is obviously not trying to supply them with a decent wage. It will find that many of the students who are working this summer will not earn a sufficient amount of money to meet the OSAP requirements set out by this government. One government program does not supply enough money to meet the earning requirements of another government program in order to continue post-secondary school education, so the government is obviously not gearing up its program to meet the financial needs of the students. I really wonder why it is bothering.

The program is going to make a small dent in the total number out of work. Perhaps the secretary has figures different than mine but I submit that we are probably looking at 100,000 young students, young people, out of work this summer, and he’s got a program that ostensibly provides 20,000 jobs. That’s different from 20,000 people employed full time for 16 weeks. I would prefer some clarification, Mr. Speaker, as to how many weeks of work we’re talking about, not just 20,000 jobs. Is each one of those jobs for 16 weeks and what fraction of the total unemployment figure for young people will that reach?

Then of course the question that automatically follows: What about the rest? What is the government going to do about the remaining number of students who are unemployed? For example, if those students are going on through university is the government going to continue the inequity that they cannot claim having been unemployed in the summer as a reason for still receiving a grant in the OSAP program? Will that penalty still be in place?

The government is saying that the best they can do is provide 20,000 jobs. But there may be 100,000 out of work, and some of the remaining 80,000 will be post-secondary school students who still require money in order to attend their college or university, and now of course they will require more money because they haven’t been employed for the summer. Will the inequities still remain in that OSAP program? Perhaps the secretary has a suggestion. Perhaps he’s very forcibly going to present to the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr.

Parrott) the suggestion that those students who have made a job search, those students who have met all the requirements of the Canada Manpower office will not be penalized, that they will be able to receive their grant and loan at the levels they had originally applied for.

I know that you, as well as the rest of us in here, are very concerned about the level of unemployment, not just for today but because of what it does for the future. When I think of what those young people must be going through -- to be unemployed, not just last summer but the summer before, and again this summer; and then with the aid of a heavy loan or help from relatives to continue their education at a post-secondary institution; and then to graduate without hope of being able to get a job in the field for which they are trained. I wonder what kind of an impression that leaves on the mind of that young person?

I suggest that as this Legislature applies the Band-Aid put out in front of us, we may solve the problems for 20,000 people this summer but we’ll be back here again next summer applying another Band-Aid. This government has failed, and failed miserably, to develop a long-range policy for jobs and to develop an adequate policy to meet the needs of young people who really want to work. The jobs aren’t there.

These are people who really want to contribute to our society and it seems that every time they turn they’re pushed aside by this government. The government throws up its hands and says we can’t do anything about losing jobs. We can’t do anything about the jobs going to the United States or Norway or Japan, because that’s the free market and we wouldn’t want to disturb it one lime bit. So we come back time after time and examine one Band-Aid after another.

At some point in time we’re obviously going to run out of Band-Aids and the patient is going to die. Before that happens, my only hope is that this government dies.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member for Renfrew North.

Mr. Conway: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Like my predecessors in this debate, I would like to congratulate you on your elevation. You shall, I know, grace this chamber with your avuncular wisdom and very careful judgement in the not-too-distant future.

I didn’t want to enter into this debate on such a morbid note as was placed by my hon. colleague from Scarborough-Ellesmere.

Mr. Nixon: He said everybody’s dying, didn’t he?

Mr. Conway: Yes. There was a terribly, terribly morbid quality about that.

I want to take this opportunity, as someone not too far removed from eligibility to this youth employment program, to speak about the general problem of youth unemployment.

Mr. Nixon: He is too young to be a member.

Mr. Conway: Well it proved in 1975, at least for one member of this House, to be an answer to the problems of youth unemployment.

But this is a serious conundrum, not only for those involved in government but also for those in the private sector.

Mr. Cassidy: God save us if that became a general answer to the problem.

An hon. member: Put your teeth back in your chin.

Mr. Conway: Michael, not for a moment would I wish to talk about what it is I’d like God to save us from in this Legislature.

Seriously, and I think obviously as Statistics Canada’s studies of spring 1917 have indicated, we face in this western industrial society of which Ontario is a part serious problems in the next generation insofar as employment of a permanent nature for the young in the society is concerned. While I can share with all the members of the Legislature the obvious inadequacies of this or any other government program I must support the import of Bill 11, having full regard to an excellent contribution made by my hon. and distinguished colleague, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr.

Nixon), who drew particular, and I thought very careful, attention to the inadequacies as they relate to the agricultural community.

[4:15]

I also want to say that I thought the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) made a very good point when he talked about the need for co-ordination. I listened the other day with a great deal of interest to a report from one of the leading northern Ontario foresters who made very clearly the point that the quotas established for this year by the Ministry of Natural Resources in reforestation -- which as we all know was a matter of some significance in the debate of May-June of this year -- are not going to be met. They’re not going to be met, apparently, because they simply are not able to have the manpower to do that. That seems to me a real shame.

The lack of priority in Bill 11 is, I think, bothersome. There does not seem to be any focus or any clear indication as to a series of priorities which the government might have in the public sector -- or, as this bill would direct, in the private sector. It is, to that extent, a very ad hoc proposition which I think is failing in that respect.

I answered, this morning, a letter I thought rather interesting from a senior municipal official in my riding who has served on the minister’s advisory board of LIP. He made a series of comments that I thought were especially pertinent.

I regret that I don’t have that letter with me, Mr. Speaker, but one of the things he was very concerned about was this lack of co-ordination in many of these youth programs. He was speaking of the young Canada works program or whatever the specific title of that program is. I think there is a real need -- I know there is in my own area -- for a real co-ordination at all levels of government, and certainly of the private sector, to provide some degree of focus to these programs, make-work or otherwise.

One problem we have in the Ottawa Valley, certainly in Renfrew North -- and I know many of my colleagues in the more remote sections of the province face this difficulty always in dealing with government in particular -- is getting the message across. I must give the government credit for a fairly successful advertising program in this respect. I must admit a certain degree of cynicism during May and June when I kept seeing these large, splashy ads relating to this particular program in all of the newspapers in the county and surrounding areas offering the goodness of one William C. Davis to the people who also, at the time, were exercising their franchise -- and who did so so very wisely.

I would encourage a continuance -- in fact, a stepping up -- of that campaign because we do have a problem with many of our people not being aware of the program, particularly in the smaller communities where the communication is not as immediate as it is in the larger centres. I realize there is an obvious difficulty in that, but I would urge the minister to do the utmost, to the best of his ability, to convey this to all parts of the province. I know that many of the people in my riding who could benefit from this are in very small and remote areas, involved in the natural resource economy in particular.

They may not -- the goodness and diligence of their member in the Legislature notwithstanding -- be fully aware of the programs that are bei