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

November 24, 1980

31st Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L120 - Mon 24 Nov 1980 / Lun 24 nov 1980

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

REPORT IN TORONTO SUN

SPEAKER’S WARRANT

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ITALIAN EARTHQUAKE

DEATH OF JULES LEGER

POLLUTION CONTROL

RURAL ELECTRICAL RATES

ORAL QUESTIONS

RURAL ELECTRICAL RATES

HOUSING AUTHORITIES’ MEDIA RELATIONS

BOYCOTT OF ONTARIO GOODS

NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

SALES TAX EXEMPTION

HOSPITAL FUNDING

PALMERSTON PROPERTY TAXES

SCHOOL TRUSTEES’ ALLOWANCES

CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY FUNDING

DRUG PRESCRIPTION RECORDS

LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD RULINGS

NURSING HOMES

FIRE SAFETY IN NURSING HOMES

OHIP COVERAGE

REPORT IN TORONTO SUN

REPORT

ELECTRICAL RATES

MOTION

SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES AMENDMENT ACT

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I have a message from the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, signed by his own hand, which replaces the message of Thursday last as there was a typographical error in the estimates accompanying that message.

Mr. Speaker: John B. Aird, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, transmits supplementary estimates of certain additional sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1981, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly, Toronto, November 24, 1980.

REPORT IN TORONTO SUN

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I must speak now to the further point of privilege regarding the defamation of my character. I have carefully read Hansard of November 20 and I have now determined that a further slander has been committed against me since November 20. For this reason, I must speak further to this matter here and now, even though the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) and the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham) are not in the Legislature.

Before I proceed, I would point out that numerous interjections were made while I was speaking to my point of privilege in this Legislature last Thursday. What I thought I heard on a number of occasions disturbed me greatly. In reviewing Hansard, I found none of the interjections was recorded. I will not tolerate the attempt by any member of this Legislature to ridicule or embarrass me further on this matter. If there has to be a libel and slander action, I will not hesitate to add further names to the style of cause in the action.

I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, and I am directing the members of Hansard to report in particular any interjections and to identify the authors thereof. I direct the Hansard reporters in particular to that area of the Legislature where the member for Hamilton Centre (Mr. M. N. Davison) is sitting.

There are seven points that I must have you consider in this matter so that there will be no question of my position in this matter.

First, the false portrayal of my behaviour arising out of my attendance with fellow colleagues of this Legislature in a cocktail lounge in the city of Washington four years ago, while a member of the select committee of the transportation of goods committee, has done irreparable damage to my character and reputation, and it has been of great public embarrassment to me, my wife and my family. I have been humiliated before my family and friends.

My anger on last Thursday was so great, Mr. Speaker, that I did not give you the benefit of having before you the basic facts of the incident surrounding the false and malicious charges that have been made against me. It is, therefore, absolutely essential that I set the record straight.

The establishment which the member for Wentworth North, the member for Rainy River, the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane) and I attended in Washington four years ago was a cocktail lounge. What became a private embarrassment to the member for Algoma-Manitoulin and me at that time was that after the waitress had served us our drinks, she left our table, walked to the dance floor, removed her top and started to dance. It had to be degrading to the girl. It was certainly embarrassing to the member for Algoma-Manitoulin and me. He and I finished our drinks and left the premises.

Second, the libel contained in the note sent to the Sun reporter alleging I was dancing with a stripper in the Washington cocktail bar was a malicious, blatant and total lie. Not only must I have a total and absolute apology from the guilty member, I must have his admission that he deliberately lied about me.

Third, with regard to the first slander made in the Sun article, which said, “The first guy I see in the bar is John Williams. I would have given $100 for a camera that day,” any reasonable person would interpret that slander to mean that I was involved in some gross impropriety, that I was doing something inconsistent with good moral conduct, that I was doing something other than enjoying a drink with my friend, the member for Algoma-Manitoulin. I demand the apology and an acknowledgement that there was no impropriety.

Fourth, the other slander was that “Williams seemed to be enjoying himself. It was not a classy place.” From this innuendo, any reasonable person would conclude that I went to the cocktail lounge for the express purpose of seeing a nude performance, and that the establishment was not the type of place a reputable person would visit. I demand an apology for both those slurs.

2:10 p.m.

Fifth, on Thursday, the member for Rainy River admitted to the members in this House that he was the author of the slur, “None of us is squeaky clean.” At that time, the member complained that I accused him of seeking out a reporter to speak to him on this matter. I tell the member, and he will have to read it in Hansard because he is not here, to read Hansard carefully. He will find no such statement made by me. He alone made that suggestion.

On Thursday, the member for Rainy River also said he had read the

article in the Toronto Sun with “some amusement.” I suggest to Mr. Reid that before he shoots off his mouth again, he have a long, hard talk with his lawyer. The general, all-encompassing nature of that slur, within the context of all the charges made against me, makes it perhaps the most serious slur of all. It was clearly designed to give credence to the libel and the other innuendoes. Any reasonable person could conclude from the inference that John Williams would be likely to commit those indiscretions. I remain resolute in my demand for an apology for this slur.

Sixth, on Friday, November 21, I was further slandered, specifically by the member for Wentworth North in the Sun newspaper of that date on page five, in an

article dealing further with this matter. The member was quoted as saying, “The place -- “ meaning the cocktail lounge -- “was so sleazy you would want to flush with your foot, but I do not begrudge anyone going to a place like that.”

The clear implication is that everything about the establishment was so bad that no self-respecting citizen would want to go in, certainly not four persons in public life, four members of the Legislature of Ontario, and that it is the type of place not even a skid row bum would want to frequent. The irony of that slur is that the member for Wentworth North and the member for Rainy River were both in the bar in question, sitting two or three tables away from the member for Algoma-Manitoulin and me. In fact, they were still there when he and I left the establishment.

I demand an apology from the member for Wentworth North for this most vicious of slanders.

Seventh, the integrity and privileges of all members of this House must be protected from unprincipled personal attacks of defamation by any other member of the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, you must discharge your duty in this regard. If you do not demand the apologies and admission of false statements on my behalf, and if those apologies and admissions are not forthcoming before I walk out the door of this Legislative Assembly, when I walk out that door I will be instructing my lawyer to initiate an action for libel and slander against the member for Wentworth North and the member for Rainy River in the Supreme Court of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: First, I want to remind the honourable member that it is not his responsibility or his prerogative to direct Hansard to add anything to or subtract anything from the official record of this House. That will be done in the normal manner as the editor of Hansard sees fit and that will continue to be the policy of Hansard. I want the honourable member to disabuse himself of any authority that he thinks he might have with regard to directing Hansard to do or not to do anything.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order --

Mr. Speaker: No. Order. I have been very patient and very tolerant of the member and allowed him to put whatever it was he thought he must put on the record.

The second thing I want to remind the honourable member is that anything that is said in this House is privileged and can’t be used as an action outside this House.

The third thing I want to remind the honourable member of is that I have heard one side of the story from the honourable member on three different occasions. One of the members who is named in the allegations made by the member has had an opportunity to respond. The other member has still not appeared in the House. I will await his arrival to hear what it is he has to say about it and decide at that time whether or not any action is deemed appropriate by the chair.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question?

Mr. Speaker: Order. No, I am not listening to you any more. You have had an opportunity to put your case on the record and that is it.

Mr. Williams: I wish to ask a question of you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No. I am not in a position to answer questions. That is the prerogative of the ministers.

SPEAKER’S WARRANT

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House that even though the Legislative Assembly Act makes it discretionary with the Speaker as to whether or not he should issue a warrant, I feel that in view of the clear direction of the House on Thursday last, the warrant should issue. It will, therefore, be served this afternoon.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, if I might, I’d like to rise on a point of order about the matter of direction. I think it is important, and I think we would all agree, that this be done in the most orderly way possible.

I have had discussions with the chairman of the justice committee dealing with the process in the event that you made the ruling that you have, sir. In view of the fact that we have a number of issues to be concerned about -- and I won’t trouble you with all the details now, but for example, the security of the documents being one principal concern, and there are others -- it was understood between the chairman of the justice committee and me that we possibly would have some discussion today and that he would; in turn, deal in committee with the matter with respect to the process -- the mechanics of the execution of the Speaker’s warrant.

I thought it would be important to acquaint the members with the understanding because I think once the warrant is issued, the manner in which the documents are delivered and the manner in which they are dealt with are, of course, very important. It may be that the delivery of the documents could await the deliberations of the justice committee on Wednesday, but I think it is important that we have some understanding about that.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, on the point raised by the Attorney General, the committee is sensitive to the problems of security, in particular, and to obtaining these documents in an orderly way. I instructed the clerk of our committee this morning that should the Speaker make the decision which he has now announced and issue the warrant, the clerk, immediately on hearing this, should contact the Attorney General and the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations to discuss those methods whereby security and the orderly transfer of those documents may be made to the committee.

I have no doubt that he is in the process of doing that at this very minute. Of course, I will he happy to meet with the Attorney General or the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea) to see if I may be of any assistance in this matter.

On the other matter of the scheduling, I have asked that the steering committee of the justice committee meet tomorrow, and the clerk is sending out notices of that to that committee. The Attorney General and any other member who is interested will he kept informed of our proposals. We will present a proposal on Wednesday morning for the scheduling of the committee for the rest of this session.

2:20 p.m.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ITALIAN EARTHQUAKE

Hon. Mr. Davis: On behalf of the government of the province, I would like to express to the House our deep sympathy for the victims of the massive earthquake that struck southern Italy during the weekend. The first reports indicate that several hundred people were killed, many more injured and extensive damage occurred in at least 29 cities and towns.

This new tragedy causes special concern and anguish in this province, for a large number of residents are of Italian origin, many of them with relatives in the region affected by the earthquake. May I remind the House that in 1976, after the Friuli earthquake in northeastern Italy, the Ontario government, in conjunction with local Italo-Canadian organizations, played an important role in the large aid project for the reconstruction of the area destroyed.

The Ontario government is now following closely the situation in southern Italy and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) is keeping in constant contact with the appropriate organizations with a view to obtaining detailed and updated reports. We are prepared to give immediate emergency relief assistance to the citizens of this stricken region as needs unfold. We are already working closely with the Canadian Red Cross to do what we can to help in this tragic situation.

To their families, particularly those resident in this province, we extend our sincere condolences.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate the Liberal caucus with the comments that have been expressed by the Premier. Being a person of Italian origin and having been born in that country, I can well imagine what this terrible event is doing to the small villages and towns of southern Italy. I wish to commend the Premier for his quick action. I sincerely hope that the Ontario government moves quickly in order to approve funds for food, medical supplies and clothing and possibly any other staples that might be necessary in this type of emergency.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, I would like to express my sympathy and feelings and associate myself with the Premier and the member for Essex South in their remarks.

The earthquake that hit Italy yesterday is the worst in the last 70 years and certainly the worst disaster since the Second World War. Cities, towns and villages have been destroyed and wiped out. The death toll, as announced at this point, is 792. The Ministry of the Interior of Italy announced that two towns have been completely wiped out. If that is the case, the toll can go as high as 5,000 people dead.

I would like to express to the Italian people, to the relatives of the victims and to the thousands of Italian-Canadians who live in Ontario and in Canada and who come from the area hit by the earthquake, my sympathy and condolences and a sense of solidarity at this time of grief and sorrow. I am sure I express the feelings of all the members of the assembly.

I would like to say we are close to the populations who have survived such a tragedy. I want to thank the Premier for his action. I am sure it will be as generous as it was in 1916 when a similar tragedy occurred in the northern part of Italy.

DEATH OF JULES LEGER

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to express on behalf of the government our very deep regret at the passing of the former Governor General of this country. The Honourable Jules Leger was one of the very great public servants, known to a number of the members of this House in a personal way, I am sure. He was a gentleman who really dedicated the bulk of his public life to endeavouring to do his best to further the interests of this country, both at home and abroad.

I would extend in a particular way our sympathies to Madame Leger, also chancellor of the University of Ottawa, a very distinguished Canadian who, I know, speaking for many of us, made us feel very much at home in her presence.

I had the privilege of being with both Jules Leger and Madame Leger here a few days ago in what was, I guess, their last public appearance in the city of Toronto. I can recall the warm words expressed by so many at that gathering about the contribution he had made to the public life of our nation.

In very simple terms, he was a great Canadian. I extend my particular sympathy to his wife, who shared those responsibilities with him for so many years and who, in her way, has done so much for this country as well.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition I want to extend our sympathies to Madame Leger and the family on the death of the former Governor General.

The Premier has indicated some people in this House knew him reasonably well. Unfortunately, I was not one of those, but shortly after he became Governor General I did have an opportunity to have dinner with him, along with the other members of the Legislature and a number of government officials, at a very special event which was hosted by the government of Ontario.

I am sure everyone will recall the dignity with which he and Madame Leger conducted themselves that evening. His remarks made it clear to all of us that we had as our Governor General, an outstanding citizen, a man of great intellect and moderation, but as well and perhaps just as important, a man of good humour and breadth of understanding. It is a great loss indeed that, for a part of his tenure, his illness prohibited him from being as active in his responsibility as Governor General as I know he would have wished. This is very much to be regretted.

We were all delighted at his recovery, but during those years Madame Leger assisted him in very special ways which were obvious to anyone seeing them in action performing official duties. I know on one occasion she even read the Speech from the Throne in Ottawa.

I want to join with the Premier and other members of the House, on behalf of my colleagues, in saying we sense the loss of a great Canadian, a man whose career must be an example to all of us.

Mr. Cassidy: De la part du Nouveau Parti Démocratique, j’aimerais joindre mes hommages destinés à M. Léger, ancien Gouverneur général et homme dont tous les Canadiens peuvent être fiers.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my voice, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, in paying tribute to Jules Leger and in expressing our sympathy to Madame Leger, two great Canadians. In the case of the Honourable Jules Leger, he was a Canadian who came from the most modest of back- grounds in a small town on the fringe of Ontario and New York state in western Quebec. He had modest beginnings, yet came from a family that gave not only a man who became Governor General of Canada, but also his brother who we all know as Cardinal Leger, another distinguished Canadian.

I took

part in the recent banquet of the conference of the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews where an award was given to the Leger family. There was a great deal of emotion at that time because of the distinguished contribution this family has given to our country over so many years.

I had looked forward to the chance of making closer acquaintance with the Legers because, when they retired, they moved into my constituency just a few blocks from where I live in Ottawa. That will not be, but on behalf of all of my party I join in the tributes that are paid to him and in paying thanks to him for his contribution to our province, to our country and to the world.

2:30 p.m.

POLLUTION CONTROL

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the ministry and this government, I would like to acknowledge a compliment paid to this province today by the United States Interstate Legislative Committee on Lake Erie.

The committee’s chairman, representative Roy Wilt from the state of Pennsylvania, presented a resolution today to Premier Davis. I have it here and a copy is attached of the statements I have sent to the other parties. In this resolution, the committee commended Ontario for our achievements in urban air pollution control, air quality monitoring and an air quality alert system.

The resolution mentioned specifically our sharp reduction of both sulphur dioxide and particulate matter in the air of Metropolitan Toronto and other major industrial centres. It also commended our clear identification of acid rain as a priority, our action program and my ministry’s efforts to seek Canada-US accord on a strategy to deal with this problem on a continental basis.

I appreciate the endorsement and the support that was offered by this committee, representing as it does four of our neighbour states -- New York, Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania. While we have observer status rather than membership in the committee, I am pleased we have been able to co-operate in resolving policies on offshore drilling in Lake Erie, in finding common ground on regulating wastes from pleasure craft, in phosphorous controls on detergents and in a number of initiatives in controlling toxic substances on both sides of the border.

I would like to express Ontario’s appreciation of this gesture of support and the sincere environmental commitment of these, our neighbour states, and to wish the committee every success in the issues it is dealing with during its meeting here today and tomorrow in Toronto.

I would like the members of the Legislature to join me in welcoming, and to recognize in the Speaker’s gallery, Chairman Wilt and the members of the interstate legislative committee, our fellow legislators from New York, Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the presence of yet another distinguished guest in the Speaker’s gallery, the Honourable Ken MacMaster, who is Minister of Labour in Manitoba. Would members also welcome him to our assembly.

RURAL ELECTRICAL RATES

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling later this afternoon a report with respect to rural residential electrical rates received from Ontario Hydro in response to the request made by the Premier (Mr. Davis) on April 10.

Members will recall Ontario Hydro was requested to prepare proposals to reduce the differential between the retail rate for electricity paid by rural residents and that paid by urban residents.

Ontario Hydro has recommended that the target differential be set at 15 per cent above the weighted average municipal hydro utility rate at a monthly consumption of 1,000 kilowatt hours. Two options are recommended in order to provide the funds for reducing the differential. These are as follows -- I quote from the report: “The government provide an annual operating grant to Ontario Hydro for this purpose or the funds be obtained by separate and distinct charge to the bulk power costs.”

As the members are aware, the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) in his wisdom, in his budget statement of November 13 advised the House that the province will provide a $20-million grant to Ontario Hydro during the coming fiscal year, so that Hydro can provide a direct discount to its rural residential customers.

This operating grant to Ontario Hydro will reduce the differential between the average municipal retail rate and the rural residential rate to about 20 per cent for the year 1981; I point out that without that grant the differential would have been about 30 per cent.

Effective January 1, 1981, some 525,000 rural and farm residential customers, using 250 kilowatt hours per month or more, will receive a discount on their electrical bill. The grant will not be available to intermittent occupancy cottages and chalets, and will not cover commercial or industrial customers.

As members are aware, the rural retail system is only one part of the total hydro system. The majority of the power consumers of Ontario, some 2.1 million customers, receive their electrical service from 325 municipal electrical utilities. As well, there are some 100 large industrial customers, which while small in number, use more than 15 per cent of the electrical energy consumed in the province.

In its preparation of the report tabled today, I am advised that Ontario Hydro discussed the rural rate differential issue and obtained the views of these two major customer classes. Their letters are contained in the report I will be tabling this afternoon.

The 30 per cent reduction in the rate differential announced by the Treasurer, measured against the goal recommended by Ontario Hydro, is an interim measure pending further action for the year 1982. The precise way subsequent reductions in the rate differential will be made is still under discussion.

It is anticipated, however, that in the coming months further discussions will be held with the municipal hydro representatives and industrial customer representatives, with the objective of making another adjustment in the rate differential for the year 1982. The change for 1982 will take into account the proposals now before these customer groups for the change in rate structure, and will attempt to achieve the dual objectives of an equitable rate structure and a reduced rural municipal differential.

Mr. Nixon: Pretty weak.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I thought that line was pretty good, to tell you the truth.

Mr. Nixon: I have a story I want to tell the minister about it.

As the members of the House know, Ontario Hydro is also reviewing its rate structure as a result of recently concluded hearings of the Ontario Energy Board and currently has proposals before its customer classes for changes in the basic rate structure for 1982. The interim reduction in the differential between the rural residential rate and the municipal retail rate should not be confused with this ongoing review of Ontario Hydro’s rate structure.

That is put in for the benefit of the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald).

Similarly, it is not appropriate to confuse the general rate increases announced for 1981 by Ontario Hydro with this special grant, as the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) has been reminded recently.

The bulk power rate increases, which are approximately at the level of inflation or below, are applicable to both urban and rural rates. However, the special discount is applicable to rural residential customers only, so as to reduce the rate differential between urban and rural residential electricity customers. The interim measure is a first and significant step in achieving that particular goal.

In

summary, whatever the 1981 electrical rates for rural Ontario and for municipal utilities may be, the differential at a consumption of 1,000 kilowatt hours between the average rural and urban bills will be reduced by 30 per cent as a result of the progressive measures taken by this government.

ORAL QUESTIONS

RURAL ELECTRICAL RATES

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy relating to the statement he has just completed.

First, why would he have rejected the concept of equality of rate structure and opted for the goal of 15 per cent, which will continue to penalize our rural hydro users as opposed to the rural users in many other jurisdictions? It will still leave us with one of the higher rate structures.

Second, why is it that he would permit the chairman of Ontario Hydro to announce an 11.2 per cent increase in rural rates, effective January 1, and then come out with this $20-million handout to the farming community, which is going to go into effect just after that? Does it not occur to him that the $20 million is even less than the government is investing in Minaki Lodge, and that it is an insufficient step to improve the inequality that has burdened the farming community for the past 36 years?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I suppose one should be somewhat appreciative of the persistent attempts of the House leader of the official opposition to strive to continue to confuse this particular issue.

Mr. Nixon: Is there anything I have said that was incorrect?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Absolutely. It is quite clear from the statement that the member is confusing an annual exercise that started some months ago in determining 1981 rates, to which reference was made in the statement. That is a process about which the member has all kinds of information.

I do not recall reading that the member attended the Ontario Energy Board public hearings to make any representation with respect to the general rate consideration. In due course, the increase was reviewed by the Ontario Energy Board and subsequently announced by Hydro. Hydro, of course, has some obligation to notify customers with respect to the adjustments to become effective on January 1.

The municipal utilities commissions’ addition to the bulk rate has hardly increased -- perhaps at the rate of inflation or below. As the statement says, they add their cost of distribution to the municipal system; so, therefore, there are these adjustments. We are talking here about the differential, whatever it may be.

One point has to be made particularly clear. Regardless of the rate increases to all customers in 1981, the differential between the weighted averages will be reduced by 30 per cent. No matter how many times the member tries to confuse the issue, that is what the rural customers are really entitled to know, namely, that the differential in 1981 between their rates and the weighted average municipal rates, because of this transfer agreement to Hydro, has been reduced in this first year by 30 per cent.

Mr. Nixon: Why would the minister think that I, or even my colleague, should attend the rate hearings held by one of the government boards when our responsibility is to do what we have done, that is, repeatedly bring it to the attention of the Premier, who no doubt told the Minister of Energy what to do about this matter. It was the pressure of the farm lobby, if one wants to call it that, present right here at Queen’s Park, that prompted the Premier to pull a sorry situation that he found himself in back into a little bit of limelight when he promised he would do something about the rates.

Is the minister implying that anything I have said is incorrect when I simply put to him that he and the chairman of Hydro, the good friend of the Premier, have allowed the rural rates to go up by 11.2 per cent on January 1 and then balance it --

Hon. Mr. Welch: And the urban rates are going up as well.

Mr. Nixon: They go up by less than 11.2 per cent. They even increase the disparity.

Mr. Speaker: Would the member ask his question?

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, would the minister not agree that it would be unfair if he did not agree with me that the $20 million, being less than what is spent on many of the puffing programs that the minister and his colleagues are supporting elsewhere, is not sufficient to meet the needs for the electrical costs, which have been unfairly high for the farming community of this province, and in fact really does not require any support from us?

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I have three observations. When the Premier rose in his place on April 10, he read from a statement indicating that the government was committed to this and that I had received instructions as to what can be done to reduce the differential. The statement is there to be read; it is quite clear. It is in Hansard.

Secondly, there is an ongoing process every year with respect to reviewing rates and power at cost. That process was going on and adjustments will be made as of January 1, 1981, reflecting those increased costs. What we are talking about now is addressing ourselves to the differential. The member makes reference to the target percentage which, I remind him, is simply a recommendation from Hydro. The government has not responded definitely with respect to this report. It has taken step number one for 1981 and made $20 million available from the consolidated revenue fund of Ontario to reduce the differential between rural and urban rates in this province by 30 per cent.

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: There has been considerable confusion out in the public as to whether the objective in the government’s new statement of policy is to reduce or to eliminate the differential.

My question to the Minister of Energy is this: Does he accept Hydro’s target differential, in other words a permanent differential of 15 per cent between rural and other rates? If so, is it his intention to take money out of the public treasury and subsidize Hydro in order to bring it down to that 15 per cent or lower? Or, as an alternative, is he going to suggest to Hydro by a policy statement, which presumably it must abide by, to do here in Ontario what has been done in four other provinces -- that is, to pool the revenues from the three different kinds of customers and equalize rates at least between residential and rural?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the spirit of the statement, the government has not as yet accepted the report from Hydro. I am tabling the report today. Second, as an interim measure for 1981, we have gone the consolidated revenue fund route and are making available to Hydro $20 million to reduce the differential. What happens for subsequent years is referred to in my statement -- we want time to further consider the implications of reaching some target with respect to the rate differential. We must keep in mind that we have some obligation to consult with the municipal utility organization and other users of hydro because of some of the implications that are involved.

In

summary, the report is here to be considered and we are not committed to it as yet. In 1981 the answer is a direct grant to Hydro for the 30 per cent reduction in the differential. What happens in 1982 and subsequent years will be the outcome of discussions and consideration of this report, and the attitudes of other customers of Hydro.

Mr. J. Reed: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I wonder if the minister could explain, if he has backtracked to the point today where he said that the objective was to reduce the differential, could he explain the statement in the mini-budget on page 16 that says “the government has decided therefore to instruct Hydro to eliminate” the undue differential between rural and urban electrical rates by 1982.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I leave it to the House to decide whether or not “to reduce” or “to eliminate” the undue differential mean the same thing. I direct the member to the Premier’s statement on April 10 which talked in terms of reducing the differential.

HOUSING AUTHORITIES’ MEDIA RELATIONS

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Housing. Can he confirm to the House that a special training program began on October 16, 1980, involving his housing authority managers, in which they are supposed to be taught what elements reporters are looking for in a news story and to give suggestions on the handling of bad news?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, in the course of running the housing authority --

Mr. Conway: Are you taking the course too?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: No, but I suggest that honourable member should try it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: What are the members opposite doing about Carleton? Was that bad news?

Mr. Riddell: Greatest fabricators of the truth you would ever want to run into.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Boy, you have been working with great teachers from Ottawa in your party.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I see that one of the perpetrators is moving. If the other one will join him behind there, we will get on with the business of the House.

Mr. Conway: I would not be seen with that minister after some of his remarks.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Huron-Middlesex made a statement that I am sure, on reflection, he would want to have removed from the record.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, reflecting on the type of information that came out of the Carleton by-election --

Mr. Speaker: I don’t want you to do that. I want you to reflect upon what you said in the House, which was clearly unparliamentary. Would you please withdraw it?

Mr. Riddell: Very reluctantly.

Mr. Speaker: You will withdraw it?

Mr. Riddell: I will withdraw a statement which I firmly believe to have contained more fact than fiction.

Mr. Speaker: It is not what you believe, but what you are allowed to say in this House.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, in the course of trying to serve the public and keep them informed on the running of housing authorities, whether it be in the Windsor area or the Ottawa area and so on, what we have been trying to do is offer to our chairmen and members of the various authorities some opportunity to understand the way they should be dealing with the press in answering specific questions. In no way has it been to try to flavour or colour their stories. But obviously some of the chairmen --

2:50 p.m.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Margaret, if you would sit and listen for a while you might just improve your knowledge. You are not the fount of knowledge in this great province.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It may help if the Minister of Housing would speak to me.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I agree with you. If the member for St. George would speak to you too, I would not have that problem.

Very clearly, when people are going into some of the chairmanships and various memberships of the boards of directors, they do not have the understanding of how they are going to face the questions of the press. What we have very simply tried to do is show them how they should cope with the situation and be able to answer the questions the press asks. In none of our housing authorities have we a thing to hide or colour or flavour. We give exactly what goes on within those authorities.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The interjection from my colleague, the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) is a good one. Why are they not just instructed to tell the truth and give the information as requested? Why would it be necessary, for example, in trying to convince the press of the efficacy and usefulness of John White’s vision in Townsend, after spending $50 million to develop a town site in which only 14 lots have been sold, for the minister to have his managers in so that he could persuade them and teach them to convince the press that that was some sort of a good thing and not just a ridiculous bad judgement that has been a burden on the taxpayers for all these years?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, very frankly, I do not accept the acting Leader of the Opposition’s remark that our people have to be brainwashed or fed, or would indicate to the press something that is not correct. Through our housing authorities and through our staff in various areas of this province, we have always given to the press exactly what they have asked for as clearly and concisely as possible, because we realize they are the communicators to the public and it is the public’s money we are spending wisely and soundly.

BOYCOTT OF ONTARIO GOODS

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. Has the Premier received a letter from the group of Alberta oil companies that committed themselves to boycotting Ontario goods? Did the Premier take the opportunity this weekend to discuss the matter with the Premier of Alberta when they were sitting a seat or two away from each other at the Grey Cup game, and specifically ask the Premier of Alberta to ensure that Alberta does not try to take out its anger on a federal Liberal budget by boycotting goods manufactured in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I was in fact one seat away from the Premier of Alberta. The intervening seat was occupied by a very dedicated loyal Ontario fan, cheering vigorously for the Hamilton Tiger-Cats with some measure of futility --

Mr. Nixon: Great girl.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That was my wife who was -- yes, a great lady.

Mr. Peterson: Did she get hit at all between you two guys?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Just ignore the interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: But he was getting very personal, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Peterson: No one else would put his wife through that. Why would you?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Anybody who watched the game yesterday knew who was sitting between you and the Premier of Alberta, but the question has nothing at all to do with that

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, it did. The question very clearly said --

Mr. Speaker: No, not who was sitting between you and the Premier.

Hon. Mr. Davis: “ -- when you were sitting close to or near the Premier of Alberta,” and I wanted to clear up for members of the House just how close that proximity was on Sunday. The member for London Centre asked how my wife could tolerate being between the two of us, and I was just replying --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That was not the question I heard. I heard an interjection that I ignored totally and I want you to do the same.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I did not actually see the Sunday edition of the Toronto Star until after the game was completed. I left fairly early on the Sunday morning, at least for me, and I must say I had not seen the story. I think it originated in the Sunday Star; anyway I had not seen it.

I have not raised it yet with the Premier of Alberta. I certainly did not yesterday because I was not familiar with it during the Grey Cup game itself or the festivities preceding it.

I would make the general observation, because I have been asked by one or two others, that in spite of the story I have read, this government would not and will not adopt any policy that precludes the free operation on a competitive basis of business within Canada.

In this province we have not limited our procurement policies, nor have we given instructions to agencies or other areas in the general government service to buy solely Ontario goods or not to buy goods from some other province of Canada. No matter what the provocation may be, that will continue to be the policy.

I think it is fair to state we are going through a period of some controversy. Quite obviously, there are people in our sister provinces -- perhaps including Saskatchewan, I do not know -- who are upset about the directions of the government of this country, partially related to the recent budget, obviously in the energy field.

I spoke in Ottawa on Thursday with respect to some of these issues, suggesting it would be wise to try to reduce some of the rhetoric and to make it clear these are important issues that must be resolved. Nothing will be served, in my view at least, by further exacerbating the situation by increasing the rhetoric or making threats of “we will do this if you do that,” et cetera. To me that is not a solution, nor is it the route we should go at this time.

On Thursday, I repeated the messages I sent to both the Prime Minister of this country and the Premier of Alberta, that I believe it would be in the national interest for them to sit down once more to see if they can negotiate an acceptable solution to the present energy debate. I would hope both those gentlemen would consider this very seriously as being the best route to go.

I want to make it clear that I regret the point of view expressed by, hopefully, a small group of people in the business community in Alberta and that this is the approach they are taking. I think it is a negative approach, quite frankly. l do not think that sort of thing produces positive results in a political or economic sense. I would only add this to it, in case there is a supplementary, that I think for most Canadians, at least, this kind of approach will not provide the kind of solutions we are looking for.

I think it is fair to state that with some companies, at least, the shareholders or even the boards of directors might start to take a modest interest because, if steel happens to be one of the products they may be considering boycotting or what have you, I would suggest those who are interested in the business activities of those organizations really would question the judgement whereby they would be importing Japanese or West German steel.

With the amount of differential in money at this time, and knowing the efficiency of, say, the steel industry in this country, I think shareholders and boards of directors would have to be a little careful about saying, “We are prepared to spend substantially more on a given product,” knowing that would reduce the economic viability of those organizations for which they have responsibility.

Mr. Speaker: That answer took five minutes.

Mr. Cassidy: Given that energy investments in western Canada will approach $100 billion over the next 10 or 12 years, and given the need to recycle oil and gas revenues in western Canada back to the rest of the country if we are not to get a completely lopsided economy, when the Premier discusses this matter with the Premier of Alberta, will he seek to have Alberta introduce Canadian content requirements for the oil industry to ensure that the benefits of those investments in western Canada are spent in Canada and not elsewhere and, therefore, to ensure that Ontario benefits in a major way from the investments being made in the oil industry?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think the history up to this time has been by and large very positive. It is something I keep reminding people about in this province. When another Syncrude plant is committed, the Ontario economy is the beneficiary, not only from the standpoint of steel and other goods being provided to the development of these major undertakings, but also in the long-term objective of sufficiency of oil supply. There is a very positive impact on the economy of this province.

I think it is fair to state -- and the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) can correct me if I am in error -- that while there may not have been any written or stated policy, there has been a recognition that the marketplace is somewhat relevant, that in the marketplace Canadian suppliers have been very competitive and that we have had our fair share of supplies to the oil industry in Alberta.

3 p.m.

The Minister of Industry and Tourism can correct me if I am wrong, but I think that is factually the case. I would be very optimistic when we get through the next short period of time, with hopefully the two governments sorting out the policies at present in conflict, that that will continue to be the policy. I see no benefit for anyone in not having it the policy.

I might have reservations if we were not as competitive. In the steel industry in particular, we can compete with any offshore supplier in terms of quality and price. I have no reluctance in making that observation because those happen to be the facts.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Before the events we are reading about escalate to the point where they become unsalvageable or at least very difficult for the respective parties to back down from, would the Premier consider leading a delegation to the west to do the best he could to be an honest broker in this situation and, in the process, as best as he can, protect the interests of the manufacturing sector in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, one would like to convey messages. I intend to be in Vancouver a week this Friday and have some observations to make. I think there are some things that can be stated and can be said. One thing that would give me some difficulty is that when I say some of these things, I am always confronted with people saying, “What does the leader of the Liberal Party of Ontario say? We recall a few months ago he said that Alberta producers should not get another nickel.” Have the Liberals once again changed their policy on energy, so that if I say some of these things, I can speak on their behalf as well?

Mr. Nixon: That is terrible.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is true, that is exactly what he said.

The honourable member asks me, why don’t I be the broker. We have made a very genuine attempt to resolve some of these --

Mr. Nixon: You are making a mess of this.

Hon. Mr. Davis: People have to be accountable for what they say. The honourable members are always very reluctant to accept the responsibility for what they say, and when they are reminded of it, they do not like it.

NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy. Last Thursday, I asked the minister about a Gallup poll on nuclear waste disposal that was taking place in a number of Ontario communities. We have since learned that the poll was carried out by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and it was conducted in August and September of this year.

Would the minister explain how this poll, which was clearly designed to help AECL soften up resistance to nuclear waste disposal, could be conducted in Ontario without the knowledge of the ministry and apparently without the knowledge of the joint Ontario-Canada committee which is supposed to oversee all research into nuclear waste disposal in this province?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, surely the honourable member does not find it unusual for a lot of things to be going on that would not necessarily be specifically brought to the attention of any particular minister.

In fairness, the honourable member will remember that as he was asking me that particular question last week, he sent the document across and asked me if I had seen it. I said honestly that I had not seen the document. I undertook, as I am sure he found out later, to find out who had prepared these questions for a regular Gallup poll survey.

As I did my follow-up, it is my understanding -- and I apologize to the honourable member for not reporting the next day -- that that particular survey was the sixth survey of an ongoing series done by the federal commission and these results are made public and are part of their report. I suppose eventually we would have access to the information that is made public as part of the publications of the commission.

Mr. Cassidy: Perhaps the minister could say what is going on. He does not know that polling is taking place, but it turns out there are six polls by AECL that have been done up until now. Is the minister aware as well that AECL has now gone into the area at East Bull Lake near Massey, west of Sudbury, without informing the local council or consulting with them, in order to carry out research into using that area as a nuclear waste disposal site?

Does the fact they are polling and not telling the minister, and the fact they are now contravening their previous policy and going into potential waste disposal sites without telling the local council, mean there has been a change in their policy of consultation with the province or with local communities? What are the changes in the consultation program and why have they not been announced?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I do not think the member is being fair in suggesting I indicated I did not know anything about polling going on. I remind him once again that he sent across to me a particular set of questions and asked me if I was familiar with those questions. I said I was not and he has subsequently confirmed that fact.

General polling going on to get certain public attitudes on the part of the commission is another matter. The member once again is confusing the fact that there are five centres about which Atomic Energy of Canada Limited announced particulars, in unorganized territories, where they were, at least at this stage, simply doing flyovers and walkovers. That was the only aspect of the program they were doing. The five areas publicized in their news release indicated that. The information was quite public at the time in those organized territories.

Mr. J. Reed: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I wonder if the minister could explain what was meant by the statements made by AECL to the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs when they told us they would not enter an area without local approval. Indeed they said that if they could not get that approval, they would not go into those areas.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think I am accountable for the activities of AECL. However, I do point out once again by way of emphasis that the five areas we are talking about now are all unorganized territories; AECL announced what their plans were with respect to flyover and walkover and that has been completed. It is my understanding there was some consultation with federal and provincial members of Parliament in whose ridings the unorganized territory was located -- and I repeat, the unorganized territory. They are the five we are talking about at the moment.

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: During bearings of the Hydro committee, the minister indicated he was postponing any effort to renegotiate the Canada-Ontario agreement with regard to developing an acceptable waste disposal management program until he got a copy of our report. The minister has a copy of that report and he has had it now for some time.

On page 29 of the report there is a recommendation that the governments of Canada and Ontario should establish, under joint ownership, a nuclear fuel waste management agency that would have an overall responsibility for the Canadian program, et cetera. Is it the government’s intention now to move to establish that agency in order to take away from AECL the overall political management of the program and leave them to do what they are capable of doing and equipped to do -- namely the research work? What is the minister’s reaction to that recommendation?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, as the member notes, the minister attended before the committee and indicated he wanted to see the report, he is quite correct in that regard. That report has not yet been debated in the House and we are soon to debate that. The minister wants the benefit of that debate, and the government’s intention with respect to the recommendations contained in that report will be made in due course, following the completion of that debate.

SALES TAX EXEMPTION

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Revenue, and I ask it on behalf of a constituent of mine who is a double amputee.

Will the minister give consideration to expanding the retail sales tax exemptions to give greater coverage for the purchase of special vehicles for those who are handicapped? On the purchase of a van, for instance, the rebate is given only for special controls and/or a wheelchair lift. Will the minister consider expanding this rebate to include other installations to assist in the comfort of those handicapped people who must often spend a longer period of time in their vans and require these installations for medical reasons?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact I directed my staff a month or more ago to look into the very type of situation that the member has brought up. There are many people in the province who may not require a modified vehicle but may need special options -- for instance, power steering, power brakes or an automatic transmission that they would not need under normal circumstances. We are looking into that situation at the moment and hopefully some solution can be found to it.

Mr. Eakins: Will the minister give special consideration to medical reasons for the equipment of a van? I am thinking of couch facilities or toilet facilities which many amputees require.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: That would be part of the overall package. Any special equipment that would be required or special option that would have to be ordered is being considered.

Ms. Bryden: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since the cuts in the retail sales tax were designed to improve purchasing and employment in this province, would it not be a sensible approach to make this change when the bill to put in the sales tax cuts that were in the mini-budget is going through?

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it is necessary for me to bring in legislation for this purpose. I think it can be done by regulation. I believe the rules we are working under now, which deal with vehicles that have been altered, are by regulation rather than legislation. I do not think the fact that the legislation is before the House or not would have any bearing on it.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. Has the minister seen recent statements by Robert Ferguson, the administrator at Humber Memorial Hospital in which he states, “Humber Memorial Hospital receives the smallest Ministry of Health annual allocation of all the west suburban hospitals,” and, “Were it to receive even the average received by other west suburban hospitals, it would have received an additional $1,428,482 for this year”? If so, does he agree with Mr. Ferguson’s figures? Does he feel this is equitable? What action is his ministry taking at present to remedy the situation at that particular hospital?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the particular quotes to which the member refers. I have met several times in recent months with the entire board of that hospital, most recently about four weeks ago, at which time we discussed their present operational plans and the 1980-81 budget situation. To the best of my knowledge, any problems they were forecasting are being addressed.

Mr. Philip: I wonder if the minister would help me to understand why the hospital has been underfunded from the time it opened, as alleged by Mr. Ferguson. Why has this one particular hospital been so underfunded historically?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, at the last meeting with the board we established that it has not. The hospital had a significant addition in 1972 or 1973, for which the hospital projected certain operating costs, which projections the hospital exceeded significantly. That has led to a battle of words from time to time between the administrators of the hospital and my own civil servants over whether the original forecasts were accurate or whether there was a difference that had to be settled.

At that very meeting I submitted to the chairman and members of the board that that meeting should be considered the meeting at which we resolved that matter once and for all. I believe we have.

PALMERSTON PROPERTY TAXES

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. The minister is probably aware of recent public revelations concerning the town of Palmerston where the records showed that up to 70 per cent of the property owners were in default of paying their property taxes.

Since municipalities are the creatures of the province and since the province is supposedly the watchdog over municipal actions, why was his ministry not able to detect the great discrepancy between what was actually paid by the residents and the amount recorded by the clerk-treasurer, a shortfall of several hundred thousand dollars in a budget of $1 million or $2 million for a population of 2,000 people?

This theft has probably been going on from three to 10 years, and neither the town’s auditors nor his ministry officials detected anything wrong during this period. In fact, it was left to one of the councillors of the town of Palmerston to detect that it involved 70 per cent of the property owners, a figure which is about 10 times the provincial average. What steps are being taken by his ministry to correct this particular problem in Palmerston and, secondly, to try to detect it before it might happen again in the province?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, the best way I can answer the question is to say, first, we do a computer printout and make it available on the percentage of tax arrears to levy. Therefore, as a ministry we know and are able to tell the various municipalities, if they do not know or if the figures they have are different from those we have.

The Palmerston situation involves criminal charges. Criminal charges have been laid against the clerk-treasurer of that municipality. I understand he subsequently submitted his resignation. There is a new audit firm coming in to do an investigation. Hopefully, after that has been completed, we will have more detailed information as to how the various events occurred in that area and what steps can be taken to prevent them from occurring in other areas.

In view of the fact the matter is before the courts and charges are pending against this person, I really do not think there is anything else I can say about the matter at this time.

Mr. Epp: Does it not appear odd to the minister that, in a municipality the size of Palmerston, the rates would go up from 10 to 15 to 30 to 50 to 60 to 70 per cent and no one in his ministry would think it odd these percentages were that high, that people were not paying their taxes? Up to 70 per cent of the people in Palmerston were suspected of not paying their taxes, 10 times the provincial average. Did nobody think it was odd?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I certainly do think it is odd and it did occur to us it was odd. For that very reason the ministry asked the crown attorney about the matter and he asked the police to investigate. Subsequently, the charges were laid.

SCHOOL TRUSTEES’ ALLOWANCES

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education. As the minister is aware, many school board members now carry out the job full-time. Since there has not been a major review of the allowances for some time, for people who are trying to do the job on a full-time basis the present allowance is clearly inadequate. Does the minister have any intention of introducing an amendment to

section 164 of the Education Act to increase the allowance to members of school boards across the province, an allowance now fixed at a maximum of $7,200 even for large metropolitan areas such as Toronto?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the honourable member is aware that, up until this date, the role of the school trustee has never been considered philosophically to be one that required full-time activity. However, it is becoming obvious some trustees are making the job a full-time activity, in spite of a fairly massive increase in the administrative staff employed to administer the schools under the jurisdiction of the board.

There has been a request from the Ontario School Trustees’ Council that we consider this matter. As the member is probably aware, or he may not be if he has not read Issues and Directions, there is at present a thorough-going review of the role of the school trustee and his relationship to the roles of others within the structure of education in Ontario. This is an integral part of that examination.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Is there consideration in that review of the establishment of a new formula that is not based on enrolment, like the present formula, but is more in terms of the duties performed?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I have not considered a new formula. The philosophical base upon which the whole process is established is what is being examined at the present time. There may be any number of ways to determine the appropriate level of remuneration.

Mr. Sweeney: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Does the minister have any records or statistics to show where in Ontario trustees are performing their jobs on a full-time basis?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, Mr. Speaker. I am sure we could do a survey asking trustees. We have the public statements of certain members of school boards that they consider their jobs to be full-time. I am very aware that, in the vast majority of boards, the role is still considered to be a part-time rather than a full-time activity.

CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY FUNDING

Mr. Blundy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Is the minister aware of the precarious financial situation of the Lambton Children’s Aid Society and the concern by the board of that society that it will go broke by the end of the year? According to the write-up in the paper, the director says, “The CAS is going broke by the end of the year.” Apparently the funding situation is that it is not able to provide the funds for the work load of this children’s aid society. Is the minister aware of this and, if so, what is he planning to do about it?

3:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I cannot claim to be intimately familiar with the details of the financial situation of that society. I can assure the honourable member, though -- as has been the case throughout this year when we moved into the new funding approach with children’s aid societies -- that any society experiencing financial difficulty or projecting a deficit situation at any point during the year has been urged to notify the ministry immediately.

We have a group of staff who will work with the society in what we are calling a special circumstances review. If, as a result of the work done with the society, it becomes evident that it is facing a financial situation as a result of unforeseen circumstances and the only solution is to look at the possibility of additional funding, then we will do that. But the first step, of course, is to look at the total budget situation and to make recommendations to the society of ways in which it might otherwise cope.

In the case of the Sarnia society, I am not sure whether there has been a special circumstance review at this point or not. I would have to check with staff to find out.

Mr. Blundy: I do not believe such a review has been held. Apparently the great increase in the case load of juveniles in the system is one of the things contributing largely to the substantial deficit of the board. I would like to know whether the minister will look into this matter and take whatever steps are necessary.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly check with staff to see if there has been a request for a special circumstances review from that society. If there has not been a communication from the society, I will certainly ask staff to check with the society to see what the situation is.

I do think, though, it is important to recognize that in many instances where the special circumstances reviews have taken place, they have resulted in finding a resolution to the budgetary difficulty the society perceived itself to be facing. In fact, in one case, a society was projecting a deficit of $160,000. As a result of the review, working with our staff, it agreed it was able to reduce that projected deficit to something like $25,000 and would be able to eliminate it by the end of the fiscal year.

Mr. McClellan: If memory serves me, Mr. Speaker, there was a royal commission inquiry into the Sarnia Children’s Aid Society. I believe we have been waiting some three years for the report. Does the minister have some explanation as to why there has not been a report as a result of that royal commission?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge, His Honour Judge --

Mr. McClellan: You have forgotten his name.

Hon. Mr. Norton: It has been a long time.

Judge H. Ward Allen, I believe, has been writing the report for some time now. I have not received the report. I do not know precisely when it will be received. I have been expecting it for months now.

Mr. McClellan: Years.

DRUG PRESCRIPTION RECORDS

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health concerning the practice known as double doctoring. We have now had court cases in regard to the practice of double doctoring, whereby drug addicts identify which physicians in any given community are either extremely loose in their keeping of records or extremely loose in giving out prescriptions for drugs and feed their habit in that manner.

Does the ministry have any accurate records on precisely who these physicians are? Is the minister condoning the practice known as double doctoring? What steps is he taking then to correct that problem?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We certainly do not condone it. We are in the position that we are dependent, to a great extent, on the co-operation of the federal government, which gains after the fact -- and sometimes quite a while after the fact -- access to the records of whoever is prescribing which narcotics. Based on that information, usually through the auspices of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, and sometimes of the police, we are able to follow up on these cases. The ministry does not have a direct line to all the prescribing habits of every physician. That would be nigh unto impossible.

Mr. Breaugh: Since it appears that drug addicts on the street, federal law enforcement agencies and local police forces know who these physicians are, it should not be that difficult to find out -- from the minister’s point of view -- who they are. What steps is the minister taking to correct the problem?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I have been in discussions with the college. My officials have been discussing the situation with the federal officials. At this point I don’t have any particular remedy to suggest, but as the member indicates, clearly the police authorities are aware of it and they do lay charges with our full co-operation where they are able to obtain the evidence.

Mr. B. Newman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: May I ask the minister if his ministry operates a data bank into which is inserted information concerning doctors who seem to prescribe an unusual quantity of drugs, as well as individuals who have purchased a substantial quantity of drugs?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in answering the initial question, the federal government does maintain a record of the dispensing habits with respect to narcotics, which is the area of concern here.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: All scheduled drugs.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The Minister of Education reminds us it records all scheduled drugs, but particularly narcotics, which are the problem. We are reliant on that data bank, which exists in the federal government.

LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD RULINGS

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I will direct this question to the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development in the absence of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie). With your permission, I will put the question and a supplementary because I am sure he will take it under advisement.

I would like to know from the minister if he agrees with the perverse and ludicrous ruling of the arbitration board in the case of Graham Cook, whose appeal for being unfairly discharged was upheld by the Ontario Labour Relations Board. Further, I would like to know what steps the minister is taking to protect the public interest in the light of the often apparent interest of the labour relations board to protect only the interest of the worker?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with the case and I will be pleased to get the information for the member.

NURSING HOMES

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have a very general question for the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker, regarding the nursing home situation in the province. Given the amount of controversy surrounding the situation in nursing homes in the province, is he going to undertake a major review of his policies for nursing homes in Ontario, especially in terms of how the profit motive in nursing home care may be affecting the quality of care, specifically in terms of the use of physical restraint and drug abuse in those institutions?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, only six months ago we revised the regulations under the Nursing Homes Act. I may say that I think in the last four years we have been very successful through a variety of means, including changes in methods of inspection of our branch, in bringing about some salutary improvements in a few of the homes that were giving us trouble two or three years ago. I think we are now in a position where more than half the nursing homes in the province are new; that is, they have been built since the new act became effective in 1972.

I do not believe the profit motive inhibits the quality of care. I do not believe there are grounds to suggest other than that belief.

With respect to drug abuse, one of the changes in the nursing home regulations made clear the responsibility of a consulting physician for each nursing home. Unless the member has some specific questions in that regard or specific concerns, it is very difficult to respond, except to say we have placed in the new regulations a greater responsibility on the physicians to be responsible for the courses of treatment they are prescribing for their patients.

3:30 p.m.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: There are any number of specifics that could be raised, Mr. Speaker. The reason I asked the general question was because I thought it was important.

I guess the way to raise this in a question is to ask the minister how he reacts to a case where a woman is restrained in a wheelchair in an institution and is drugged to the point where her speech is slurred and her eyes are glazed. This is on one day. The next day somebody from the outside gets that individual out of the home and has her performing kitchen duties for a volunteer organization in the community. The day before she was restrained physically in a chair and was drugged to the point where she was slurring her speech. She came out the next day and, after being out eight or nine hours, was able to participate as a regular functioning human being.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member is suggesting that there is some professional misconduct here, that somebody had mistreated the individual --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The same thing happens all the time.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, with respect, the member makes these kinds of generalizations, but let us be fair. I know the member does not have any use for anybody who believes in profit, no matter who they are or where they are, but let us be fair. If he wants to give me the specifics so I can have a medical consultant look at that and see if there is something untoward, I will be glad to do so; but he should not make those ridiculous generalizations.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I indicated when I released the report of the review on Metropolitan Toronto that one of the things we are looking at is the possibility of revising our regulations so as to require the holding of a certain number of beds for persons needing heavier nursing care.

It is a difficult area to comment on because what is heavy nursing care to one may not be to another. To be covered as an extended care patient, the patient must require a minimum of 90 minutes nursing per day. There is no maximum indicated. Some of the operators and some of the reviewers of needs in certain parts of the province have commented that there seems to be a heavier level of nursing care being required than was the case five and 10 years ago.

I think one might argue that some of those patients should properly be in chronic hospitals if their needs have become that heavy. That is one of the things we are looking at, and if we do that we would have to amend the criteria for extended care. Then it would become part of the general negotiations with the nursing home association, which are carried on annually with respect to the overall per diem rate. Even those who are covered now as extended care patients have varying needs of nursing care.

FIRE SAFETY IN NURSING HOMES

Mr. Nixon: I would like to put a question to the Minister of Health about his nursing home policy. Is he familiar with the situation in the village of Ohsweken in the Six Nations Indian reservation, which has been well provided with hospital and later nursing home care in the same building, known as the Lady Willingdon Nursing Home, which has become old and I believe probably offers some fire danger? I do not want to over-emphasize that but it obviously is a matter of concern for the local Indian council.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I do recall it. My staff are looking into it. I may say that in a related matter, namely the provision of institutional care for the native people, I was disappointed recently in discussions with the federal minister to find that apparently they will not participate in any way in funding facilities that they consider to be nursing homes.

It was indicated to me by the federal minister that they would consider sharing in the funding of “what they consider to be hospital facilities” but not nursing homes. So it is related and it could be an additional problem. Our staff are looking into it.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: This community, as the minister knows, has a population of 9,000. There is every justification for a modem facility and I do not believe the minister is incapable of putting it to his federal colleagues in such a way that they could not turn him down. This community has to have a proper facility and since nobody else is taking the lead, I believe we should take the lead.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The honourable member may recall -- perhaps he did not see it -- that last week my colleague, the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Brunelle), and I issued a press release dealing with the beginning of planning to replace the two hospital units of the James Bay General Hospital at Attawapiskat and Fort Albany. It was specifically with respect to those two units that I put to the federal minister that the assistance of the federal government in funding would be helpful. I was told in no uncertain terms that they consider those to be nursing home units, not hospital care, and they would not consider participating.

I will be glad to take this matter up further with the federal minister, but having been turned down once I am not all that optimistic that she is going to change her mind. If, in fact, the need is for a nursing home as such, then in the absence of any federal assistance, the money would have to be raised privately, as it is for new construction at all nursing homes in the province.

Mr. Warner: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I am wondering if the minister has any intention to introduce changes to the Nursing Homes Act as a result of the recommendation from the coroner’s jury at the inquest on the fire that occurred in Mississauga.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We have had that now about five weeks and we are working on it. In fact, I have the first draft of an analysis my staff are working on now.

Most of the recommendations have to do with staff training and with the question of smoke detectors versus closure devices and various other things. I think it is a little early for us to comment until we take the matter up with the fire marshal’s office, but it is under review. I will be making a statement at some point in the next couple of months once that review is completed.

Mr. Speaker: So as not to establish a dangerous precedent, I would like to advise the House that that was not a supplementary.

Mr. Warner: But it was an important question.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, but not a supplementary.

OHIP COVERAGE

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the Minister of Health and it concerns a comment in Mr. Justice Emmett Hall’s review of our national medical program. Reading from page 46, I quote Mr. Justice Hall as saying:

“During the public hearings I was surprised at the wealth of complaints regarding the numbers of persons reported by community groups and by medical and hospital spokesmen as not being insured in the three provinces of Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario, which still levy premium taxes.”

Can the Minister of Health for Ontario indicate whether he has evidence to indicate, and to assure this House and the people of Ontario, that as of this month not less than 95 per cent of the people of Ontario are enrolled in our medicare program as it is defined and described in the Medical Care Act of Canada?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I do not receive monthly reports on the percentage of the population enrolled. I can tell the member, though, that the numbers on premium assistance are up this year over last. Currently, approximately two million people in the province are receiving some form of OHIP premium assistance, be that full assistance to the elderly or to those of extremely limited income, or partial 25, 50 or 75 per cent subsidization. I do not receive a monthly report on the actual percentage coverage unless there is a problem, and to the best of my knowledge there is no problem.

Mr. Conway: Could you give me an assurance to find out?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Sure.

REPORT IN TORONTO SUN

Mr. M. N. Davison: Mr. Speaker, earlier today the prurient-minded member for Oriole (Mr. Williams) -- or Topless John as he is known in some quarters -- drew attention to some alleged and purported problem with Hansard’s recording of interjections and took the opportunity to name me specifically in that regard.

3:40 p.m.

He stated this afternoon in the House, “I will not tolerate the attempt by any member of this Legislature to ridicule or embarrass me further on this matter.” Surely the honourable member does not need any help from me in his bizarre and twisted penchant for self-abuse.

He did go on to say, “If there has to be any libel and slander action, I will not hesitate to add further names to the style of cause in the action.” Regarding this rather bizarre threat, if there is any doubt in his mind or the mind of any other member of the House, let me say I think the member for Oriole is a moralizing little twerp and I invite him to sue me.

REPORT

ELECTRICAL RATES

Hon. Mr. Welch presented a report entitled Reduction of Electrical Retail Rate Differentials in Ontario.

MOTION

SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the subcommittee on agenda and procedure of the standing committee on the administration of justice be authorized to sit on Tuesday, November 25, in the afternoon.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Martel moved first reading of Bill 206,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to prohibit an employer from requiring an employee to work more than five consecutive days without a day’s rest.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Philip moved first reading of Bill 207,

An Act to amend the Residential Tenancies Act, 1979.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to require a landlord who obtains vacant possession of a rental unit for the purpose of making repairs or renovations to the unit to apply to the Residential Tenancy Commission for an order determining the rent that may be charged for the repaired or renovated unit.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Philip moved first reading of Bill 208,

An Act to amend the Residential Tenancies Act, 1979.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to authorize the Residential Tenancy Commission to conduct an inquiry on its own motion to determine whether a tenant has paid an amount of rent in excess of the amount permitted under the act.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES

House in committee of supply.

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make some brief introductory remarks concerning my ministry before we proceed with the discussion of the various votes and items in the 1980-81 estimates.

The general mission of the Ministry of Government Services is to provide accommodation facilities and a wide range of goods and services in support of government programs. The operations of the ministry are organized into three major programs of service: accommodation, supply and services, and communication and computer services.

The accommodation program has responsibility for the provision and maintenance of accommodation for ministries and agencies of the government.

The supply and services program involves the provision of a wide variety of centralized services and facilities to achieve efficiencies and economies in the supply of purchased goods and services as well as certain commonly used government support services.

The communication and computer services program is responsible for the supply and promotion of computer processing services as well as the provision of local and intercity telephone service for government use.

The ministry’s annual report for 1979-80 provides information on the achievements of all ministry programs and also provides complete information on tenders and contract awards. The 1980-81 estimates are within the target established by the government and are in accordance with the government program on expenditure restraint.

This concludes my introductory remarks and I will be pleased to answer any questions concerning the estimates of my ministry.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Chairman, to start off on the estimates of the Ministry of Government Services, this ministry covers a wide-ranging area of responsibility, much more than a lot of people probably anticipate, with the number of buildings involved, with leasing and supplying services to the government in other ways, with purchases and so forth.

I thought I would make a few remarks this year with regard to the overall leasing and ownership of buildings of the ministry, especially in Metropolitan Toronto. I know it has buildings in many other cities and towns throughout Ontario, but I have had a cursory look at the buildings and some of the leasing in Metropolitan Toronto and I must say it is a hotchpotch of a number of areas leased, parts of buildings leased and four or five floors in some buildings taken over. One ministry moves to another area, and so forth.

I think it would almost take a royal commission or a select committee of the Legislature really to look into all the leasing and owning of buildings in Metropolitan Toronto if one wanted to delve into it thoroughly. If it is not too much trouble to the ministry and its officials, I would like at some time to have a complete list of all the buildings, parts of buildings or property leased in Metropolitan Toronto, the owners of each building and the cost per square foot of that property. In the past we have had some information to that effect to some degree, but it could probably be updated without too much trouble.

3:50 p.m.

However, in the last few weeks I have looked around at some of the property we have. The other day I went to 77 Bloor Street West, where the Ministry of Culture and Recreation is located. They have leased many floors in that building, as have the Ministry of Revenue people.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Food is located on the very elegant corner of Yonge and Bloor. It is, I suppose, one of the most elite corners of Metropolitan Toronto. When you say “Bloor and Yonge” to people outside Metropolitan Toronto, they figure that is the corner. We talk of Bay Street, where the financiers are located, but most people are more familiar with Bloor and Yonge in Toronto. That is where the Ministry of Agriculture and Food is located.

Many people, farmers in particular, would wonder why it is necessary to have the Ministry of Agriculture and Food officials on the corner of Bloor and Yonge streets where the asphalt and pavement are pretty thick. Those people would probably think the ministry should be located in an area where there is a little green grass around, or the odd field of wheat, or where tomatoes or soybeans are growing and blowing in the wind.

It would give a little better feeling to those officials who are looking after the farmers and the ministry might have a little better outlook on what is going on, especially if there was a driving rain or a flood and they could not see the soybeans for the water lying in the fields. They would then have a little more sympathy for them when there is a little trouble in the farming community.

I suppose the same could be said with regard to the Ministry of Natural Resources. Their offices are across the street from here. I understand they would like to get into a larger building into which they could move all their people. That would probably be on the corner of Bay and Wellesley streets, where the ministry has a fair-sized piece of property. I believe I read in an

article that they have about 18,000 square feet in either that area or on Grosvenor Street. Maybe some of their staff who deal with day-to-day operations in Northern Affairs should be in the great city of North Bay. It is still all part of Ontario.

I realize that when one starts moving offices, one runs into problems such as the Ministry of Health is having in regard to moving the Ontario health insurance plan to Kingston. One of the promises was that it was to be moved. Of course, that means a lot of people have to move with their jobs. That is a real problem. If one were going to make a policy of decentralizing government, one would have to make it over a long-range period in order to avoid those problems with employees who would have to sell their homes and move. That is quite understandable.

However, this government has been in power 37 years, three months and 21 days. I have a feeling they created their own problems and they keep trying to solve them.

This is not directly related to these estimates, but I am sure you will not rule me out of order, Mr. Chairman. When I was the critic for the Ministry of Correctional Services, they used to have problems when they tried to replace some of the old jails through the assistance of the Ministry of Government Services. They had systems in Correctional Services 15 or 20 years ago that many people thought were pretty good.

As the change in government policy came along, it had to become more modem so it did away with all the facilities having any livestock or any gardens or any farms around the jails. They made a great statement about it, but I will be darned if the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Walker) is not bringing it all back in. That is the problem with the democratic system. When we have one party in power so long, we lose a little bit of that democratic system. They resort to repeats and change their minds and do not have a complete new look at where we are going. It is just a rehash of the old.

There are buildings scattered in different places. I know they are probably leased and rented on the basis of “we can’t be building new buildings all the time.” That is right; sometimes it is cheaper to lease. We have Consumer and Commercial Relations at Yonge and Wellesley. I believe a portion of Northern Affairs is across the street at 10 Wellesley. We have the Minister of Housing at Bay and Wellesley at the new Sun Oil Building. Downtown, the Ministry of Labour has large offices on University Avenue. The Attorney General’s massive offices are on King Street East.

As the lease was going up on the property where the Ombudsman was located, that office is moving to the corner of Bloor and Avenue Road into the Massey Building. I believe it is part of the university and it is being refurbished. The building apparently has been vacant for some time. From what I gathered when I was in the estimates of the Ombudsman last week, the lease seemed to be fairly reasonable. It was $10 a square foot.

However, there is a lot of proper floor space that might be a bit of a problem to use. I understand the hallways are very wide and he said that by using low partitions and so forth he could use some of the hallways for office space. The lease is quite reasonable compared to leases in most areas, especially when one considers the corner of Bloor and Avenue Road is another prime real estate property. I understand they are going to take the top two storeys. It is only a three-storey building. A bank would be going into the lower floor. There again, we are scattered around considerably.

I suppose some would say the Ombudsman shouldn’t be located in a government building or around the Legislature here because he is independent -- an arm of the Legislature itself and not of the government. Perhaps we would agree that he should be in a place outside the government buildings.

Then there is Correctional Services. Some of its offices are located out on Eglinton East in the Scarborough area.

One has some reservations about all this. I think probably it has come about as government has grown so much over the last 20 years. We have taken over many functions that were done previously by -- the capitalist system, I guess. For instance, the health care system is a big business with government -- hospitals and OHIP and all that

-- so naturally we have a great many employees; we have expanded in other areas. This, I suppose, was never planned by the government as to where they were going to put all the people.

They built some new buildings, of course -- we are well aware of the ones to the east of these buildings where some of them have been named after the Premiers and so forth. We are well aware of the buildings that are close by and are serving a good purpose. Also there is Ontario Hydro, which is not really a part of this ministry, as we are well aware. But in a way it has probably one of the choicest pieces of property in Ontario, on the corner of College and University Avenue.

I think anyone who ever comes to Toronto and drives down University Avenue would have to say it is one of the nicest streets in any city on the North American continent. I think whoever laid it out, and the people of Toronto who have kept it the way they have, are to be commended because it is a beautiful street. We have the massive Hydro mirrored building on the corner. There again, I am sure Ontario Hydro could have been located in many other places in the province than on the corner of College and University. However, I think that was thrashed out before in this Legislature a few years ago.

4 p.m.

They have other buildings next door. I was down a few weeks ago and was given an opportunity to go through their two adjoining buildings. Since we are looking for space, the province is looking for space, and the members here are looking for space so as to be housed in proper offices, I went down to look into the Ontario Hydro buildings. The building directly south of the new tower has, I think, only two floors not leased out yet. The executive suite on the top floor, of course, is not leased out. I do not know who will take it.

It is a very sumptuous place with nice high ceilings and built-in panelling and, I suppose, it is a little more difficult to lease out. The building is in good, satisfactory condition.

I went into the adjoining building built around 1915 or 1920, apparently, the Historical Society of Toronto has named it as a historical building. What to do with the building now is a real problem as far as I am concerned: if I own a building and someone designates it as historical, what I am going to do with it? In the case of that Hydro building, the cost of rebuilding it and making it usable for offices and so forth is really more than that of having it torn down and building a new building. This is a concern to me.

I am not sure about that building -- and I suppose I would ruffle a few feathers of some of those in heritage and historical groups. I believe in our history as much as anybody, but I do not think one needs a lot of buildings restored so that we will know our past. I question the case of that building, when one looks at what it is going to cost to have it refurbished and rebuilt. The stairways and elevators are all on the same hallway; of course, that is against all fire regulations. An addition would have to be built on the back end to allow for stairways. Of course, the elevators have to be all closed in with hallways around them to avoid spaces where a fire would go up.

I have great reservations about that building when I understand that Hydro is going to have to pay $55 or more per square foot to refurbish it, and then have to look for tenants to whom to lease it out. I think we have had some problems there, and I think that was some space that probably could have been taken over by the government prior to Hydro’s doing anything with it to use it for future space. It certainly is close to here. I just wonder if that is a possibility. However, I do realize there are those who feel the front does look like a historical building.

I know there are some beautiful historical buildings in Toronto. I notice between here and downtown there are a number. I am not sure that we need to reserve them all for posterity.

As far as members’ accommodations here go, we have had many discussions and meetings with regard to this. I know there are other people in this Legislature who are more familiar with the situation than I am, as far as having meetings with regard to it is concerned. I find it very difficult as a whip, whenever the bells ring, to find out where everybody is located because we have them situated in about four different parts of the building. I suppose the only way to solve that is to win the election, to have them all in one place, and let everybody else do with the best they can find.

I am sure it is a problem for all the members and all the caucuses, and is something that is going to have to be dealt with as soon as possible. Some of the members have very small quarters. I myself had very small quarters for some time but, somehow or other, I happened to be near an area that had a very large room and happened to be there at the right time. Now, I must say, I have ample room.

However, everyone is not in the same position. It just happened that the rooms were there and a number of us were in that corner where four or five of our caucus members are, and we now have ample space. It is much nicer to work in than before. I find myself more content and more willing to stay in the office when the House is not sitting than I was when I had a hole in the wall. It was about eight feet by eight feet and had no windows and there was material piled all around.

I know we talk about whether there should be an addition on the north side, and whether this should be torn down or that didn’t look very satisfactory. The property the government owns east of Bay, as I mentioned previously, is something that needs some consideration.

I don’t envy the minister his position with all the leasing he has to do. He leases floors on one street, and maybe five miles away he has another couple of floors leased out. I can see the problems that creates. I just wonder whether we should take a new look to see whether in the long range we should be having some staff and some of the offices located in areas other than downtown Toronto.

The Ministry of Transportation and Communications has most of its facilities on Highway 401. It seems like a good logical place for the highways department to be located, more or less on the outskirts, but I wonder whether there are other offices, other ministries such as Agriculture and Food or Northern Affairs that should be looking at locating closer to areas where they are actually working, and dealing with people and problems in connection with their offices. That is something I have concern about.

I really don’t have anything else right now, other than that I will be asking the minister some questions with regard to telephones and some of the contracting, et cetera, that I have run across in public accounts. That is all for right now, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to participate in the opening statement on these estimates. I want to say at the outset that I consider this ministry to be very important, although it is one which I suppose is very quiet in terms of public perception. When you think of government you normally think of the large ministries of Education, Health and Transportation and Communications and so on. The ministry of public services is perhaps left behind in terms of being considered to be very important, but it is an important ministry because it delivers a lot of services.

As we go through the estimates I would like to deal at some length with some of the services, such as providing courtroom space. The Ministry of Government Services is involved whenever there is talk of a new courthouse or trying to get courtroom facilities. That is an extremely important role in this province. There are quite a few other important areas I intend to raise as we go through the estimates. I would like to give the minister my list of things I would like to deal with and perhaps we will have an opportunity to discuss them as we go through the estimates.

I am curious about the status of the east of Bay project in Toronto. The whole area of the project has been spoken about at some length. Many of us are not sure about the future of that entire area. We would like to know what role Government Services will have in that project and when the minister believes there will be a final determination of the status of that project.

I wish to discuss the future of several courthouses, starting with Hamilton, of course, because there is a very serious shortage of courtroom space in Hamilton. I think the shortage is the equivalent of at least two courts. There are other areas too, of course. The Cartier Square development in Ottawa is still under discussion. If the minister can unravel some of the mysteries of that, I would certainly be most grateful.

4:10 p.m.

In connection with that, and I am hoping the minister will see the connection, I would like to know the ministry’s involvement with historical buildings and whether the ministry has had an active role in attempting to identify historical buildings for possible use as courtrooms, or other government offices if they are not suitable for courtroom space.

As the minister well knows, not every building is suitable for a courtroom, but as we are now going through this phase in Ontario of taking a closer look at our buildings before we decide to demolish them -- and, where we can determine their historical significance, we are having a second or third guess at what the building should be used for -- that is a very healthy exercise and I, for one, am pleased to see that.

It suggests to me there is not always the need for a restaurant, that sometimes a historical building can serve a good function as office space or perhaps commercial space or, in some instances, as a good location for some government services. I am wondering how active the government is in pursuing those historical buildings in various parts of our province, particularly, of course, if they can be used for courtroom space.

I think we need to have some discussion about the future of this building, the future of the Legislative Building here at Queen’s Park, particularly the north wing, which has been under some discussion. The government has --

Interjection.

Mr. Warner: If we put the Liberals into the north wing, it would definitely qualify as an historical building housing artifacts.

The government has a legislative building expansion presentation. At the appropriate time, I would like to deal with that submission because the government brought forward three particular alternatives with respect to the accommodation which will be needed in the future. Part of it hinges on whether, following the 1981 census check, the Legislature decides in its wisdom to expand the membership of the Legislature. If we follow the Camp commission reports, then we are looking at a sizeable increase in the number of seats in the Legislature and, with that, the attendant space which would be required by members.

Even if we accept the status quo of 125 seats, but accept another recommendation of the Camp commission, that members be entitled to one researcher plus an assistant, then obviously we again have a space problem. From that come the various suggestions as to what should happen with the north wing. As I say, at the appropriate time I would like to go into detail on that

Along with that, I would like to know from the minister what he has been doing and what his thoughts are on a residence for the Lieutenant Governor. The subject crops up from time to time as to whether the Lieutenant Governor should have separate residence outside of this building. If I understand my history properly, this was the situation at one time. Those who are much older than I, such as the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), could probably enlighten us on that point. I would like to know if the ministry has followed that up and whether it has any specific suggestions.

I would like to talk about procurement policies, whether the government has what I would think is a more enlightened procurement policy than has been the case in the past with respect particularly to small business in Ontario, that is, small business owned and operated by Canadians. I would like to know whether there is a preferential procurement policy with respect to Canadian-owned and, I would hope, Ontario-based small business and what the ministry is doing to try to promote such a procurement policy, obviously in an effort to aid small business endeavours in Ontario involved in manufacturing and processing.

I would also like to discuss something which has come up from time to time -- I think the standing committee on members’ services has dealt with it intermittently -- and that is the split jurisdiction which exists within the Legislative Building between the Speaker and the Ministry of Government Services. The minister is no doubt aware that, under the previous minister, we had a prolonged discussion about the future of the part of the building which still comes under Government Services and the reluctance to turn it over to the Speaker.

If we believe the Speaker represents a neutral position with respect to the Legislature and the functioning of the Legislature, all the space within the building should come under his jurisdiction and all members, no matter what party they belong to, whether in government or opposition, should be treated in an equal and fair way when they come to the Speaker with requests for use of a portion of the building. I would like to know this minister’s feelings. We are well aware of the previous minister’s feelings on the subject, but I would like to know if this minister is perhaps a bit more flexible than the previous one.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps I am at your mercy here, but I have had some difficulty in raising this matter with other jurisdictions, so I am going to try the Ministry of Government Services. It seems to me that within the building all members should have the same treatment with respect to hearing the debates and with respect to the ringing of the division bells. I understand the government members have been equipped, I presume by way of Government Services’ action, with individual bell systems in their offices to acquaint them that a division has been called. I think the same should be available to all members of the Legislature.

Similarly, the nice little squawk box I have in my office, placed there because of my position as caucus whip, whereby I can work in my office, listen to the debates and then come down here at the appropriate time, should be available to all members of the assembly. I think that is legitimately a function of the Ministry of Government Services. If I am wrong, I am sure either the minister or the Chairman will correct me.

Those are the topics I wish to discuss. As I said at the outset of my opening remarks, this ministry is important because it can take an active role. It can take a leadership role in the issues, whether it is a courthouse facility which is needed, whether it is a procurement policy or whether it is protecting this historic building in which we are situated now. Regardless of which issue, it can take a leadership role and can provide good, efficient service to the people of Ontario, but we need to know from the minister whether he is prepared to take that leadership role. Those are the kinds of questions which I and my colleagues will be asking as we go through the ministry estimates.

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make some brief comments on what the member for Essex North (Mr. Ruston) had to say in his opening remarks. I would like to start by saying how pleased I am he took the time to go around and look at the different buildings. As the minister, I am always pleased when my critics or other members want to go around and look in a constructive way at what we rent and lease. We are only too pleased to have them go there. I was only sorry I could not go along with the members when they went to look at the old Ontario Hydro building, but I am sure they were well looked after by my deputy and those who attended from the ministry.

4:20 p.m.

That shows the interest of the member for Essex North and I am pleased about that. The member did mention the number of leases we have in the city. We ourselves own 8,966,338 square feet of space in the downtown area and we lease 3,290,325 square feet, made up of 220 leases in 150 separate buildings. From the comments the member made, if we do come forward in the future with a building and find the capital to do it, I hope this means he will be supporting us for the east-of-Bay property. From the remarks he made, I am sure he would.

I am sure the member will agree also that in order to change a lot of that leased accommodation in downtown Toronto, we would need a considerable increase in our capital. We all know that in time of constraint capital is not forthcoming as fast as some of us might like.

I was pleased that members, including the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), went down to look at the old Hydro building. No doubt he will comment on it when his time comes around. The member commented that the money would be a lot better spent tearing it down and rebuilding rather than putting it back into good repair, taking into consideration energy conservation and the utilization of space on the floors.

Perhaps I could answer both the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere and the member for Sudbury East at the same time when they talked about accommodation for the members. We did make a proposal to the Board of Internal Economy. At that time, we had three proposals. The first was to take out the top and put one storey on the west wing. We found the cost of that to be quite high. I was hoping to have the cost here for you. Perhaps when we talk about it again later on, I will have those figures for the member for Sudbury East.

The cost was high and it still would not give us the space we feel we need to meet the Morrow report and others in the future as far as more members of the Legislature are concerned.

The second proposal was one my predecessor brought forward. It was to tear down the back

section and rebuild it with parking underneath. I have those figures here. For the first proposal I mentioned, taking off and adding one floor to the present north wing, the cost would be just under $13 million. It would be 15,600 square feet and the cost would be $828 per square foot. For any of you who have anything to do with cost of construction, that would appear to be away out of line.

The demolition of the north wing and the addition of the new project my predecessor mentioned would give us 147,000 square feet of usable space, but would cost $44 million plus. The third proposal was to carry on the way we are and build a building east of Bay, between Grosvenor and Bay, to use the land up between where the YMCA has purchased and on out to Bay Street. This would be 297,500 square feet, and the estimated cost would be reduced to $153 per square foot, which would put it in line.

I believe the member for Essex North mentioned relocating some of the ministries. I think one he zeroed in on was Culture and Recreation. Another one was Natural Resources, where all their offices in Metro Toronto could probably be together east of Bay, and then we could renovate the Whitney Block. It was not the member for Sudbury East, as he would have us believe, but my ministry that suggested that if five or six or seven different groups of people moved to the Whitney Block, this building then could be used for the members. We would then have enough space around in the main building for the members that would meet their needs for some time in the future.

The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere suggested that we should go beyond the 300 square feet per member to accommodate researchers and so on in the future. On this, a lot of people say, “Go back to the drawing board again,” but I would only say to the members that there is a limit to what we can do. Rather than just saying, “Go back to the drawing board,” I would hope some constructive ideas come in on that as well.

The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere asked about the east of Bay project. He can see that we are looking into the future with the possibility that that is how we might be able to work to get a building there that would accommodate the members in this building eventually. We have a planner who is working with all the interested parties and we expect a report soon.

As to Cartier Square in Ottawa, it is coming along reasonably well. We hope some time early in the new year we will have a model we can show to the interested city officials and the National Capital Commission planners and all who attended the meetings up until this point and we hope to have a meeting after that time with the public.

When we have the model there, that probably will show, at least on the outside, something of the concept of the new building, how it is going to sit on the lot, et cetera. It will be better understood by the lay people, in my opinion, than showing them all the drawings we have at the present time. That is basically where that stands, and it seems to be going along relatively well.

4:30 p.m.

The member also asked what we were doing with our heritage buildings and suggested they could perhaps, be used for courthouses. I would suggest to the member that the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) sets out the priorities for courthouses in his ministry. If the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins) were here, he would have to agree that the training school we converted into court facilities in his area has worked out fairly well. We are not finished, but in just a few months we were able to move in the courts which are now located there, with the alterations our people were able to do.

Both members mentioned space for the members. I think I have covered that before. The Lieutenant Governor’s residence has been talked about but, at the present time, it is felt it is perhaps best to leave it in this building. On the possibility of having bells or chimes in all members’ offices, I am told that when I was in this building not all offices had them. You could usually hear them. I do not know whether it is a plus to have them in your office, or better to have them somewhere in the hall if they happen to ring as long as they did last Thursday night.

The member noted what happened a week or so ago when he mentioned to the Speaker about not being able to hear the bells. I believe it was one of his members who had a bit of a problem, as I do myself, with hearing. An extra bell or chime was installed almost immediately. That member came over and thanked us for doing that.

Those are some general remarks for the two leadoff speakers. I am sure we will have more questions as we get into the votes.

On vote 501, ministry administration program; item 1, main office:

Mr. Martel: I have been sitting on the select committee on plant shutdowns at the present time, Mr. Chairman, but I have a couple of comments I want to put on the record with respect to the building.

Let me begin by saying to the minister I well recall the day the three proposals as outlined were put before the Board of Internal Economy. I turned to my friend the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) and I nudged him as we got to the third proposal. I said to him, “That is it. That is the one he wants. He is presenting it with such relish and such delight that I am sure that is the one the government wants.” Sure enough, it was. It was not to accommodate members. The new proposal was to build a new building on Bay Street to house some civil servants across the way.

I have been in this building 13 years and it has been a struggle, so help me, even to get half-way decent accommodation for members of this Legislature.

Mr. B. Newman: You are lucky compared to the days before you came.

Mr. Martel: I want to tell the member I was here a short time after him. I do not recall writing letters in this Legislature, but I certainly well recall five of us in an office that now houses the Sergeant at Arms. There were five desks all one against the other. Space and accommodation for members have always been wanting in this place save, of course, in the last five or six years. If one is a government member, the choice is much better than if he happens to be on this side of the House. That still applies.

As the minister knows since he visited my quarters -- and I speak on behalf of the New Democratic Party -- there are 70 or 80 of us on the second floor in the north wing. There are still members who have piddly little offices.

Mr. Worton: Piddly?

Mr. Martel: Piddly, yes. It is a little puddle.

I want to go back to the proposal because there is something rotten in the state of Denmark. I listened to the three proposals. We went along a little better than two years ago with your predecessor. We said we were prepared to wait until the government was prepared to demolish that north wing and make accommodations big enough to accommodate members and the services offered.

I looked at the three proposals, and I grant the first one is out of whack. It is far too costly at $12 million or $13 million to put one floor over there. I am the first one to accept that. What bothers me is that number three becomes so attractive. Whatever you are going to put up over there, you could well put up here, depending on the design, and house as many people.

In fact, I suggest as a positive suggestion to the minister, for a change we should lease some of our buildings to somebody in the civil service. We might put the Ministry of Northern Affairs, which is one of the offices being contemplated, up on the seventh floor instead of over on the corner of Bay and Wellesley. In other words, the additional space that would be left over we could give to the various government offices that require it, but this building is to serve the Legislature. That does not mean taking out part of the library, as is now being considered.

In fact, at the Board of Internal Economy last Monday, we had difficulty in ascertaining where part of Dr. Land’s new group of people are going to go, because