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

April 6, 1978

31st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L030 - Thu 6 Apr 1978 / Jeu 6 avr 1978

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

MILTON JAIL

PAPER MILL CONTROL ORDERS

ONTARIO STATUS OF WOMEN COUNCIL

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MEMBER

ORAL QUESTIONS

HARTT INQUIRY

AUTO PACT

SALE OF MORTGAGES

OMA-OHIP FEE SCHEDULES

UTDC RESEARCH

TRUCKING CHARGES

TRUCKING LEGISLATION

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION

FIRE DAMAGE ASSISTANCE

SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION

WATER QUALITY REPORT

PAPER MILL CONTROL ORDERS

HOME RENEWAL PROGRAM

REXDALE H.O.M.E. PROJECT

HOME RENEWAL PROGRAM

REXDALE H.O.M.E. PROJECT

MINISTRY REORGANIZATION

NO-FAULT INSURANCE

SAFETY IN LEGISLATIVE BUILDING

REPORTS

STANDING SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

STANDING PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS COMMITREE

GOVERNMENT MOTION NO. 9

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND

CONSUMER PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

BELLEVILLE OFFICE LOCATION

CONSUMER PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND

CONSUMER PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

SECURITIES ACT

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

MILTON JAIL

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce the intention of my ministry to close, later this spring, the century-old Milton Jail.

All of our complement staff at the jail have been offered alternative employment with my ministry. It is expected that most of the 19 staff will move to the Maplehurst Correctional Centre/Adult Training Centre, itself situated in Milton.

Milton Jail is only 25 miles from the Hamilton-Wentworth Detention Centre which, when opened shortly, will have bed space available to accommodate the average daily number of approximately 40 inmates from this jail. Inmates from the Halton and Peel regions will eventually be housed in the Milton Detention Centre, currently scheduled to be available in 1983. This centre will be constructed on the Maplehurst Correctional Centre site, which is already serviced for this purpose.

The closure of the Milton Jail will effect a saving to my ministry of approximately $400,000 in 1978-79 and $493,000 each year thereafter. There will also be a considerable saving to the Ministry of Government Services since substantial expenditures would have been required for renovations to keep this antiquated jail operating.

This will be the seventh 19th-century jail which I have closed since my appointment as minister last September. The others are the old Don Jail in Toronto and the jails in Orangeville, Simcoe, Kitchener, Guelph and Hamilton.

I would also like to give credit to my predecessors who, in the period between May 1971 and the date of my appointment, closed 13 antiquated facilities. These were the jails in Brampton, London, St. Thomas, Woodstock, Welland, St. Catharines, Cayuga, Goderich, Ottawa, Kingston, Napanee, Belleville and Picton. In addition to these 20 closures, upgrading of facilities was carried out at other jails, including major renovations at such institutions as Brockville Jail.

As I have indicated on a previous occasion in this House, I believe this government can be justifiably proud of its jail replacement and renovation program, which was set in motion when the province took over full responsibility for the operation of county and city jails in 1968.

Mr. Deans: With any kind of luck, you’ll be out of work pretty soon.

PAPER MILL CONTROL ORDERS

Hon. Mr. McCague: I have a rather long answer to a question asked recently, Mr. Speaker, and I would like your permission to read it.

Mr. Speaker: I think it’s for the hon. member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Gaunt). I spoke to the Minister of the Environment, and perhaps the hon. member would waive the provisional order requirement that he must be provided with a copy of a ministerial statement in advance. We decided this was the best way to handle it because of the length of the answer to a multiple question.

Mr. Gaunt: I am quite prepared to do that, sir.

Mr. Nixon: Murray’s easy to get along with.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I’m sure the hon. member would agree to that, especially since I anticipated the ruling you might give and gave him an answer two days ago -- the same one I’m going to give you today.

Mr. Deans: Then why didn’t you produce a copy?

Hon. Mr. McCague: In response to the question -- and it was first posed by the NDP critic for Environment, the hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) -- concerning control orders under the Environmental Protection Act on the Abitibi Forest Products Limited Thunder Bay division and Sturgeon Falls division mills, and the Abitibi Paper Company Limited Fort William division, I am pleased to advise that the requirements of these orders have been met.

The applications for approval for assistance to reduce suspended solids in the effluent from the Thunder Bay and Fort William division mills were submitted by the required deadline of March 30, 1978. Similarly, the report from the Sturgeon Falls division mill on means of reducing phenol loadings from the press runoff was received March 31, 1978.

In response to a supplementary question from the hon. member for Huron-Bruce, I would point out that the control orders on the three Abitibi mills in Thunder Bay require these mills as a group to take actions to reduce their collective discharges of BOD loadings. The first of these actions is required of the Abitibi Forest Products Limited Provincial Paper division Thunder Bay mill by June 30, 1978. Other major changes in Thunder Bay to reduce the BOD loadings are required by December 31, 1980, and December 31, 1982. Accordingly, there is no cause to consider charging the company under these orders at this time.

I might add that the company has proposed to meet the first of these obligations by shutting down its sulphide pulping operations at the Provincial Paper mill by June 30, 1978. We understand the other reductions required by the end of 1980 and 1982 will be achieved by major changes in the pulping processes used.

The hon. member for Huron-Bruce, in his question, appeared to imply violations by Abitibi Thunder Bay with respect to BOD emissions per se. The orders specify an overall reduction in BOD emissions or loadings from the three mills at this location to approximately 39 tons per day by the end of the term of the orders on December 31, 1982. There are no other BOD loading requirements that the company must meet at the present time.

It may be that the hon. member for Huron-Bruce is referring to BOD loading objectives which were identified in the ministry’s report issued in September 1976 and titled, Alternative Policies for Pollution Abatement -- The Ontario Pulp and Paper Industry. This report contains a table listing BOD and suspended solid loading from all pulp and paper industry mills in the province and identifies BOD and suspended solid loading objectives for them.

It should be noted that these objectives were not produced for regulatory purposes. They were produced from a special internal study in 1973 to permit rough estimates to be made of the ultimate cost of pollution abatement facilities to deal with these two effluent parameters alone and to put some degree of perspective on this cost and the overall environment problem associated with the industry. They were included for a similar purpose in the 1976 report.

They were developed using a number of different approaches such as water quality requirements and what then appeared to be the best available abatement technology. In the latter case, there was no evaluation of whether or not the best available technology would necessarily be practicable in individual cases.

My ministry intends to continue to press this industry for substantial pollution abatement improvements wherever environmental problems are encountered. However, the factors we will consider in setting priorities for such works at individual mills will include, in addition to suspended solids and BOD, other waste water factors such as toxicity to fish and taste- and odour-imparting properties, and those associated with gaseous and particulate emissions to the air environment.

ONTARIO STATUS OF WOMEN COUNCIL

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, earlier today I deposited with the Clerk, copies of the third annual report of the Ontario Status of Women Council. The report covers the period ended March 31, 1977. I am sure that most members of this House are aware of the excellent work this council has done since it was appointed some four years ago, and I want to thank the members of the council for the very fine work they are doing.

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MEMBER

Mr. Speaker: Before we get to oral questions, on Tuesday, April 4, the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) raised a matter of privilege and asked me to take such action as I deemed to be appropriate.

I have carefully perused the Hansard report of Mr. Riddell’s statement, and from the facts as presented by him there appears to be at least a presumption that several offences against the provisions of

section 38 of the Legislative Assembly Act may have been committed, not only by the service of these documents during the prohibited period, but also by the service of such documents in the precincts of the House without the permission of the House or the Speaker.

However, I must again remind the House that if any further action is to be taken in this matter it must be taken by the House. The Speaker has no authority to impose any sanctions on offenders. Only the House has such power.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I move the referral of this matter to the procedural affairs committee.

Mr. Nixon: The matter was raised by my colleague, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Deans: But there’s a motion on the floor.

Mr. S. Smith: He didn’t have to do it.

Mr. Nixon: Since the motion has been put by the hon. member for Riverdale, I would ask your permission, sir, to put forward a motion on behalf of my colleague which would move the matter to the appropriate committee of the House.

Mr. Speaker: We have two motions, it would appear. The hon. member for Riverdale --

Mr. S. Smith: He didn’t have the floor; he wasn’t recognized, Mr. Speaker. You were still standing.

Mr. Speaker: He really wasn’t recognized, although I didn’t deny him the right to speak. Would the hon. member for Riverdale defer, to the hon. member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, the sum and substance of the motion?

Mr. Renwick: Always, Mr. Speaker.

[2:15]

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, because of your ruling, I would move, seconded by Mr. Worton, that the matter of the service of documents pursuant to the Libel and Slander Act and the Labour Relations Act on the member for Huron-Middlesex, contrary to

section 38 of the Legislative Assembly Act, RSO 1970,

chapter 240, stand referred to the standing committee on procedural affairs, for which inquiry the committee may be empowered to engage counsel and which proceedings shall be transcribed and printed by Hansard in the format used for the House.

The committee shall be empowered to call for persons, papers and things and to examine witnesses under oath pursuant to

section 35 of the Legislative Assembly Act and for which purpose the assembly doth command and compel the attendance before the said committee of such persons and the production of such papers and things as the committee may deem necessary for any of its proceedings and deliberations for which the hon. the Speaker may issue his warrant or warrants.

Motion agreed to.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr. S. Smith: Before I ask any questions, Mr. Speaker, might I inquire of the government House leader as to the whereabouts of the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) and the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough)?

Mr. Breaugh: They’re hiding.

Mr. Martel: That is the hon. member’s first question.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I can’t be precise as to their whereabouts but I think their ultimate destination is here.

Mr. Ruston: But the hon. House leader is not sure about that, though.

Mr. S. Smith: I can only assume that as usual they are circling, looking for a place to land.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition with his second question.

Mr. S. Smith: I will therefore reserve my questions, Mr. Speaker, with your permission, until the arrival of those two hon. gentlemen.

HARTT INQUIRY

Mr. Cassidy: I first have a point of personal privilege to you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to point out to the Premier that contrary to what he said on Tuesday when he suggested I was not being constructive about the Hartt commission report and that the native peoples really supported the report, it has been greeted with great disappointment by both Chief Andrew Rickard from Treaty Nine and Chief Peter Kelly from Treaty Three. I just want to record that, and I hope the Premier doesn’t make that kind of mistake in future.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the point of personal privilege, I would only inform the hon. member that I can’t speak for Chief Kelly, but Chief Rickard was in my office when the concept of the three-pronged -- or whatever terminology one may use -- study of this matter was discussed --

Mr. Cassidy: John Kelly, I am sorry.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and I have to inform the members of the House that Chief Rickard was totally in support of that recommendation.

Mr. Martel: That is not what he said in the paper.

Mr. Cassidy: I would just say that that is not what Chief Rickard had to say in the paper.

AUTO PACT

Mr. Cassidy: I do have a question now of the Premier. Will the Premier make a statement on his meetings these past few days with the heads of major automobile producing companies and, in particular, what consequences those meetings may produce in terms of ensuring a better balance of employment and production between Canada and the US in the automobile industry?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I met this week with one of the companies; I am meeting with another this afternoon. Perhaps early next week, if the hon. member wanted to ask me the same question, which I think is a very proper question, I would be in a better position to answer after I finish these discussions.

Mr. Cassidy: I have a supplementary. Could the Premier say with which company he has met now and give us an ongoing report on that particular meeting and we’ll take the rest as they come?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think it would be more appropriate if we discuss this matter after I’ve met with all of the companies.

Mr. Cassidy: I’ll have to let that one ride then.

SALE OF MORTGAGES

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question of the Treasurer, now that he has come into the House. No, I will address this to the Minister of Housing since he doesn’t get much attention and he should have some more.

Mrs. Campbell: Why?

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw to the minister’s attention that the government has begun to sell off the Ontario Mortgage Corporation’s mortgages.

I want to ask the Minister of Housing, now that the government has begun to sell off these HOME and condominium mortgages which stem from 1976, 1977 and 1978, and in view of the fact that the sale carries with it no obligation on the part of the buyers of those mortgages to renew mortgages on the below-market interest rates at which they were issued over the past three years, can the minister say whether the government has informed the 1,072 families immediately concerned that their mortgages are being sold?

Can the minister also say what will be the consequences to those people when they are asked to renew mortgages at rates very considerably higher than the rate at which they took them, particularly in view of the fact that they were offered special mortgage financing at below market interest rates when they took out those mortgages?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, very clearly, the mortgages will be sold on the same conditions as prevailed at the time that they were originally entered into and the purchasers of those mortgages will not be bound to any terms different from those the Ontario Mortgage Corporation itself would have been bound to at the time of renewal.

Mr. Cassidy: Does the minister not feel the government has any moral obligation to the people who took out those mortgages and who were enticed into taking those mortgages with large ads like this, which appeared only one year ago tomorrow and which said and I quote: “Special mortgage financing at below market interest rates”? Were those people not being offered 35-year amortization on mortgages and do they not have the right to expect that that kind of mortgage financing would continue over the life of that agreement?

Mr. Cassidy: Since the mortgages were originally offered on a five-year term, 35-year amortization, and since the interest rate originally offered was substantially below market in order to allow people who couldn’t afford market housing to get homes of their own, was it not the intention of the Ontario Mortgage Corporation just one year ago, as recently as that, that this kind of financing would continue for a lengthy period of time and not just for the five-year period, or if OMC and the government intended that financing concession to extend for only five years, should they not have been telling those purchasers so that they knew where they stood?

Mr. Makarchuk: Supplementary: Would the minister indicate at this time what he expects those people to do when they get around to renewing their mortgage at the expiration of the five-year term and they will not be able to afford a mortgage at the current interest rates?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to project myself into a hypothetical situation.

Mr. Wildman: You are a hypothetical minister.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: You are a vanishing member, too.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary: Without dealing in hypothetical situations, I would like to ask the minister whether or not the ministry has conducted any study of those persons who took advantage of the mortgage break that was offered to determine whether or not their financial position, which was taken into account at the time they qualified for the reduced mortgage, has improved to the point where they will be able to go into the private mortgage field and find mortgages at a price they can afford to pay, or will they, as I suspect, be faced with the possibility of having to sell the homes because they can’t meet the additional payments?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the latter

part I do not believe will happen, that they will be looking at selling their homes. There will be mortgage money and the companies that will be purchasing the mortgages --

Mr. Makarchuk: Where is it?

Mr. Deans: Have you studied the mortgage market?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, if I could finish the answer to the question, unless they prefer to answer it themselves --

Mr. Deans: I don’t want to answer it, no.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: -- the mortgage corporation has re-examined the mortgages -- and may I say they have been gone over very carefully by our corporation -- to make sure that the best qualified mortgages for replacement under the free-market position are being made available at this time and the conditions will be as prevailing in the market at the time.

Mr. Makarchuk: That’s right, and they can’t afford that.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I’d be wrong to try to project or assess what some people’s incomes might be at the end of the first five-year period, any more that it has been possible in the free-market position.

Mr. Deans: Aren’t you glad you are out of that ministry, John?

OMA-OHIP FEE SCHEDULES

Mr. S. Smith: A question for the Minister of Health regarding the negotiations with the Ontario Medical Association: Can the minister tell us whether there has been any suggestion from the OMA that the health insurance legislation be changed to allow opting-in doctors to bill their patients for the amount that is above the OHIP scale, or permit doctors to opt in for some of their poor patients and opt out for wealthier ones? Have those suggestions been brought forward at all and, if so, has the minister made it very clear that the government will not permit this to happen?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Inasmuch as the negotiations are going on this afternoon -- even as we speak, I think -- I would prefer not to comment on those at this time.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, do I take it that such a possibility might even be entertained by the Ministry of Health -- that you have not, in fact, completely ruled that out as a possibility?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, five years ago, the government and the OMA agreed we would thereafter enter into good-faith bargaining on an annual basis. The Leader of the Opposition and others can postulate all kinds of things and suggest that they are in or out; I intend to live up to that commitment to good-faith bargaining, and the way we are going, the whole thing could end up here on the floor of the House before we even arrive at some kind of conclusion. Certainly, once the negotiations with the Ontario Medical Association are concluded, I will be glad to discuss what has gone on.

Mr. Nixon: Fait accompli.

Mrs. Campbell: Fait accompli.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: But I don’t think it would really serve the interest of the people whom we both serve if we don’t let those negotiations carry on as constituted.

Mr. Cassidy: In addition to the minister’s commitment to act in good faith in discussions with the doctors, will the minister assure the House that he will also act in good faith in relation to the people who are consumers of medical care in the province of Ontario, in particular because thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of them, will be excluded from balanced billing proposals which the doctors have put forward and which would have the result of bringing in a disguised form of deterrent fee in the province?

Hon. B. Stephenson: That is absolute balderdash, Cassidy; you know not whereof you speak.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It goes without saying that the government which introduced hospital insurance into the province, that the government which introduced medical insurance into the province --

Mr. Swart: Dragged into it, is the word.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- will ensure that the interests of the people are in fact looked after in the best way possible.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the minister’s statements on Friday concerning a separate OHIP

schedule of benefits and a separate OMA fee schedule, is the minister now suggesting that the government is prepared to give government approval to both such scales? The minister will recall that he said we could anticipate that there will be two separate scales. He mentioned this on Friday. Would both of those scales have government approval, once they are negotiated?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: First of all, let me repeat what I said on Friday -- in fact, what I said at the time the negotiations began -- that is that the government is not going to pay 36 per cent more for the services listed in the schedule. Secondly, if you will recognize that by law -- unless you would prefer to change this law or to make it illegal -- the Ontario Medical Association has always had, and I think should always have, the right to write its own fee schedules to indicate what its members, as responsible people, think they are worth. I know some members opposite would almost like to make doctors civil servants --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- I was pointing that way, it’s all right, calm down. The hon. Leader of the Opposition used the term “have government approval.” The law is such that they have the right to write their own fee schedule. The law is such that the government has the right to say we are not going to pay 36 per cent more. Both of those things have happened.

Mr. S. Smith: A brief supplementary: The minister may not be aware of the import of the question. Is the minister aware that if the OMA writes its own

schedule and receives government approval for it, it is then able to charge in accordance with the

schedule without running afoul of the Combines Investigation Act;

whereas, is the minister aware and has he conveyed to the OMA that, if they have their scale without government approval, they might run afoul of that particular Act -- the Combines Investigation Act?

[2:30]

Hon. B. Stephenson: Where has the member been for 10 years? He is misinformed, ill-informed and unaware.

Mr. Deans: He’s been on fee for service for 10 years.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: To the best of my knowledge, the Combines Investigation Act doesn’t enter into it at all. If the member is suggesting it does, I’d be interested to know in what respect he’d suggest that. Then we’d be prepared to look at that angle. I’m sure that the Ontario Medical Association have certainly considered that because they have excellent counsel themselves.

Mr. S. Smith: As a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker or at least as a final supplementary from myself though maybe others have supplementaries --

Mr. Speaker: It probably will be the final supplementary.

Mr. S. Smith: In your wisdom, sir.

Mr. Speaker: We’ve had six now.

Mr. S. Smith: Since the proposals that I asked about in my original question -- namely, the thought that the OMA might be asking for the rights for opted-in doctors to bill for the amount above the OHIP scale and for other doctors to be able to opt in their poor patients and opt out their wealthy ones -- would each involve amendments to the Health Insurance Act, how can the minister come to this Legislature and say that such amendments are negotiable with the OMA before they’re discussable in the Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: With respect, the hon. member is trying to put words into my mouth.

Mr. Bolan: That’s easy to do.

Mr. Deans: Either that or keep it closed.

Mr. McEwen: Why would he? The minister has his foot in his mouth. He could get both feet in there too.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I understand that he would perhaps do like the people to his left, virtually make doctors civil servants and dictate their incomes to them.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Hey, look, the member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. McEwen) is back. Did we have a by-election?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: With respect, Mr. Speaker, including silent Earl back there, I’m sure the member would want us to bargain in good faith and not to destroy those negotiations which have gone on very well for four years and we’re now in our fifth. As I said earlier, I think we should let those negotiations carry on in good faith and not destroy them here.

Mr. Mancini: Where’s Frank Miller now that we need him?

Mr. McEwen: Where’s Matthew Dymond?

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary. The member for Parkdale.

Mr. Dukszta: Supplementary: As the minister well knows, the final responsibility for what is going to be the allowed fee

schedule and payment for the services is the minister’s. Will the minister answer very simply the question, is he going to allow, once the negotiation is over, this unconscionably large increase for the physicians?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I’ve already made it clear that the government is not going to pay 36 per cent more. That’s been clear all along.

Mr. Cassidy: You’ll make the people pay it.

UTDC RESEARCH

Mr. S. Smith: My second question is for the Treasurer. In view of the Treasurer’s comments on Thursday when he said: “There has been a great deal of research done at universities, for example, publicly-funded research by very bright people . . . My own view is that some of that research might have been better done in the private sector”, could the Treasurer give us his view on the public funding of transit research by his government through its wholly-owned Urban Transportation Development Corporation? Does he think this is still an appropriate use of public funds or shouldn’t such research really be done in the private sector?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: My view? Fantastic!

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: In the absence of a dictionary, one hardly knows whether this is simply beyond the Treasurer’s fantasy to contemplate or whether in fact he believes that this is a wonderful way to carry out the business of Ontario. Can he explain, given the rather dismal sales record of this agency since 1974 and its utter failure to attract partners or private capital, how long is he, as a person who believes in research in the private sector, prepared to subsidize its experiments in the $55.5 million intermediate capacity transit program, for example?

Hon Mr. McKeough: My remarks on Thursday, the member says it was, and I’ve made these remarks before, have been in the context that a number of people -- including perhaps the Leader of the Opposition himself, though I’m not sure of this, but certainly I and the Premier and others -- have said that governments have been taking an increasingly larger part of the gross national product. That is something which has been reversed in this province for the last two or three years, and we hope to continue to reverse that.

What I was commenting on is what is often overlooked, namely, that in the process of going from roughly 20 per cent of GNP after the war to something like 40 per cent in Canada today -- about 35 in Ontario -- what has also accompanied that has been an increase in the human resources used by governments or by the public sector generally. Certainly some of the best talents and best brains have been recruited into government, into hospital administration, into universities, some of them into publicly financed research activities.

The point I was attempting to make was that had the money, of course, not been available in such large quantities to the public sector, some of the human resources might have found their way on to plant floors, if I can put it that way -- into industrial research, into higher technology -- in the private sector.

Ms. Gigantes: There isn’t any research. What are you talking about?

Mr. Warner: Nonsense.

Ms. Gigantes: You are dreaming.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: But the fact is that brains as well as human resources have been consumed by the public sector in ever larger amounts.

Mr. Foulds: Unfortunately it doesn’t apply in your case.

Hon. B. Stephenson: And it will never apply in yours.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Having said that, there will always be, I would expect, a role for governments to do those things which are either too large for the private sector or to which the private sector is not paying attention.

The fact is, to my recollection -- the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) or the Premier have a much better knowledge of this than I -- but the discouraging part was that the private sector in this country, not just in this province, was not moving into the area of what is obviously a very high risk technology, a very exciting technology -- that of transit. Certainly if the private sector had moved forward then we would not be as involved as we are.

Mr. Makarchuk: You are talking like a socialist.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Certainly if the private sector can get involved or wants to get involved then I think UTDC takes on an entirely different role.

Mr. Makarchuk: Socialist McKeough. Maoist.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Will the Treasurer comment then on the possibility that the problem is not too much research being carried out in the public sector but too little research being carried out in the private sector, and that the reason for that lack of research in the private sector may in fact be because of the foreign control of too much of the industry in our province and in our country?

Would the Treasurer like to comment specifically on the findings of the federal government’s automotive task force, which I think is relevant, which says that consumers in Canada have contributed at least $230 million annually to the research and development accounts of the parent corporations of the big four here in Canada over the past six years? That amount of money is going abroad for research in the United States. Should that research not be carried out here in Ontario or in Canada within the private sector, and what is the government going to do about it?

Mr. Eakins: That’s his third question.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes, but I don’t think the member can have it both ways.

Mr. MacDonald: Nor can you.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The member is an advocate of an ever larger public sector. One of the things that has happened in an enlarging public sector -- for example, versus us and the United States -- is that you have, and I don’t have these figures at my fingertips, but you have assistant professors in this country earning $28,000 to $29,000 a year where in the States they would earn $18,000 a year.

Had not so much of our human and capital resources gone into the public sector, using universities as one example --

Mr. Wildman: They would have gone to the United States.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- it might have been easier and less expensive, and therefore there might have been more research in the private sector of this country. But that has not been the case.

Interjections.

An hon. member: Might.

Mr. Warner: That’s wishful thinking.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, if in fact the Treasurer feels badly that so much has gone into the public sector when the private sector could have done it, what is the reason for UTDC? Is it simply that the Treasurer fails to provide reasonable conditions for the private sector to enter into this allegedly worthy enterprise, or does the public sector simply know better than to get involved in the sort of thing that is going on in the Kingston situation?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, Mr. Speaker. I think the question as to why they weren’t involved in it is a question which should be put to the Minister of Transportation and Communications.

Mr. McEwen: You announced it.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: But what you are talking about are very large projects and what you are talking about in UTDC as much as anything was a catalyst to bring some large and some small companies together in one place.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Will the Treasurer not agree that the major reason the government undertook the research being carried out at Kingston through the Urban Transportation Development Corporation, is because the government got egg on its face with the Krauss-Maffei adventure, when it should, in fact, have been building on the strength of transit technology already available in the public sector through the TTC?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly not reply in the affirmative to that question. I don’t think the member knows what he is talking about. I’m sure during the estimates --

Mr. Cassidy: I told the government, long before --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: You told the government?

Mr. Cassidy: Sure.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Well then, I guess we didn’t listen.

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, I guess you didn’t.

Mr. Warner: That’s the story of your life.

Mr. Reed: Mr. Speaker, would the minister, then, in the interests of encouraging entrepreneurship and private enterprise in the province, and private creativity, take the necessary steps to ensure that the research and development money, which is now budgeted with the Ministry of Energy, be apportioned as seed money to private interests in order to develop the unique energy technology that we are capable of in Ontario?

Mr. Swart: You guys should stop trying; you will never get an answer from McKeough.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, that is a question that should go to my colleague, the Minister of Energy (Mr. Baetz).

TRUCKING CHARGES

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Could the minister inform the House whether or not he has personally endorsed his ministry’s memorandum, dated February 13 of this year, signed by acting district manager M. M. McIntyre, relating to the production of written reports and the establishment of a quota system in the highway carriers section?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Cunningham: Supplementary: I wonder if the minister would be kind enough to comment on the following excerpt from that memorandum: “The number of reports being produced at this time are not sufficient to account for the number of man-hours spent to obtain them. Therefore, in order to account for the man-hours being spent, it is necessary to increase production of both the truck inspections and area inspectors. The following will be implemented immediately.

“At the truck inspection stations, each man is requested to produce a minimum of 10 reports weekly. As a result of these 10 reports produced, it will be expected that no less than seven charges will be directed. In the areas of each inspector, it is requested to produce a minimum of six reports weekly; as a result of these reports it is expected that no less than five charges will be directed.

“On portable scales each man is expected to produce a minimum of seven reports per week. As a result of these seven reports it is expected that no less than six charges will be directed.

“The quantities of production set out in the above are of minimum. Subsequently, in a period of nine months, these figures will be increased to 15 and 12, 10 and seven respectively. In reviewing some of the production reports recently submitted it is evident that some of the personnel are very close to meeting these requirements at the present time, however, it is felt that all personnel can reach this minimum by applying extra effort.”

Mr. Breithaupt: They will get gold stars.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, can I ask what the question is?

Mr. Ruston: Are you in favour of it?

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not agree the establishment of a quota system is contrary to the public interest and the policy set out by his ministry and the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) with regard to the issuance of tickets on a quota basis, and would the minister consult with the Attorney General with regard to the legality and the propriety, the efficacy, of such a so-called quota system? And would he not take immediate steps to see that such a distasteful practice is terminated or discontinued immediately?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the memorandum from one of my officials.

Mr. Nixon: Have a look at it and withdraw it.

Mr. Warner: Why did you say you didn’t endorse it?

An hon. member: You said you didn’t endorse it.

An hon. member: You are going to wish you never had.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I certainly will review the memorandum; but from what I have observed from the excerpts that have been read from the memorandum, it is a part of the continuing effort of my ministry to increase our productivity, to cut down our overhead and to get the best possible use out of our facilities.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I can see absolutely no reason whatsoever why we should not say that each of our inspection staff, doing truck inspections for instance, should not be expected to do a certain number of inspections per day. I think that’s only good --

Interjections.

[2:45]

Mr. Warner: Is the minister telling us this afternoon that it is government policy to establish a quota system in terms of fines; that that is a policy and he’s prepared to stand by that? If not, does he intend to change the policy, because obviously he has outlined it in the memorandum that was sent?

Mr. Makarchuk: Is this a new tax policy?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Nothing I said had anything to do with setting a quota for the laying of charges.

Mr. Conway: A new tax policy.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I said I agree fully that there should be objectives or expected levels of productivity of our employees. Obviously, when a certain number of inspections are made, if the inspections find unsafe vehicles, for instance, or overloaded vehicles or whatever it may be, then only on that evidence are charges laid, and that’s the way it should be.

Mr. Warner: That’s not what it says in the memo. It’s a quota system for fines.

Mr. Cunningham: It is becoming obvious that nothing that the minister says or does is of any importance to the people within his ministry. Would the minister not agree, though, that outlined in this particular memo -- which we have sent over to him now and which he is now in possession of --

Hon. Mr. Davis: You are brilliant. Your intellectual capacity is overwhelming.

Mr. Cunningham: -- it, in fact, explicitly defines the necessity for laying charges, regardless of the merits of any particular case; and that he is, in fact, setting up a quota system for charges on the highways?

Hon. W. Newman: Did they get you?

Mr. Cunningham: I don’t drive a truck; do you?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I assure you that as far as I am concerned there is no quota system for charges. There should be, and I fully support, an increase in the productivity of the number of inspections carried out. Charges would only be laid when there were offences committed.

Mr. S. Smith: What are you going to do about this?

TRUCKING LEGISLATION

Mr. Philip: A new question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications: Can the minister inform the House of the results of his two meetings with representatives of the trucking industry, one of which I believe the Premier attended? Also, in the light of these representations and in the light of the fact that the minister no doubt now realizes that Bill 21 will not pass in this House -- indeed that even members of his own cabinet are opposed to it -- will the minister assure the House that Bill 21 will either be withdrawn or substantially altered?

Mr. Conway: Lorne says it will not pass.

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Philip: Is the minister aware of the uncertainty that has been created by this bill in the industry, such uncertainty that companies in this time of high unemployment are, in fact, cancelling orders for trucks and trailers because they don’t know what is happening in their business? In the light of this, will the minister not at least make a definitive statement in the next week or so as to where he stands on Bill 21, which is opposed by both opposition parties in this House?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I have had ongoing discussions --

Mr. Nixon: I bet you have.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I have ongoing discussions at all times with the transportation industry, not only the --

Mr. Cunningham: Are you and the president speaking yet?

Mr. Breithaupt: Careful, or the contributions are going to stop.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I have had many discussions with many aspects of the transportation industry, not only the trucking association. I have met twice with representatives of the OTA in the past few weeks. I have also met a number of other people interested both in the trucking industry and the shipping industry, and we’re having ongoing discussions at all times.

Mr. Philip: One final supplementary: Have the minister or his officials yet calculated the number of licence holders who will be affected by this deregulation bill, and is it not fair to say that aside for R and H class licences that the bill will affect between 40 and 50 per cent of present licences?

Mr. S. Smith: Is it in order to discuss the bill like this?

An hon. member: I would think not.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say at the moment whether those figures that have been suggested are right.

Mr. Swart: You should be able to.

Hon. Mr. Snow: When one says the percentage of the licence holders who would be affected, it would certainly depend on what degree of effect one considers to be an effect, and I’m sure there’s a great many licensed carriers now who would be affected positively as well as negatively.

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION

Hon. B. Stephenson: On Tuesday last the hon. member for Quinte (Mr. O’Neil) questioned me about the date at which the assessments to the Workmen’s Compensation Board by employers in the province were due. I misinformed the House when I suggested --

Mr. S. Smith: Oh, not again.

Mr. Conway: That’s par for the course.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- this was a part of the quarterly program of assessment which was to be introduced, I thought, this year. It will be introduced in 1979. But I would remind the House that all assessments are based on payroll estimates which are required to be returned to the board by the end of February.

Before 1977, it was normal practice for the board, for more than 20 years, to issue the forms for the return of payroll information in December and January of each year. Following the receipt of the estimated payroll, billings began in February and they were due 60 days later, at some time during the month of April.

In 1977, the billings were sent out in March and were due 60 days later, on May 20. That’s exactly the same date the billings are due this year. No change has been made in the assessment notice issuing function in 1978 except that particular assessments are no longer delayed. All of the assessments are now issued when they are ready, rather than being sent out in bulk form.

Mr. O’Neil: As a supplementary to my question asked the other day, does the minister not feel this will put additional hardship on a lot of both large and small businesses in making sure these payments are due well in advance of previous years? I don’t believe they have been notified.

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, they are not due in advance of previous years. They are due two months after the issuance of the assessment, as has always been the case.

Mr. McClellan: May I ask the minister again, how long do the injured workers with families in the province have to suffer by virtue of her refusal to bring in an amendment to raise the rates?

Mr. Speaker: I don’t believe that is a supplementary.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege, I have never refused to bring that in. I have stated several times in this House that indeed it would be coming in.

Mr. Wildman: Just postponed.

Mr. O’Neil: Final supplementary: Is the minister then saying that when these assessments were sent out, she did notify the people that the payments would be due earlier?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I would remind the hon. member that I don’t send the assessments out, the Workmen’s Compensation Board does. And exactly the same notice was sent to each employer, that the payments are due 60 days following the receipt of the assessment.

Mr. McClellan: Over which you have no control at all.

Hon. B. Stephenson: This has not changed in 20 years. It will change next year, in that those who were assessed more than $10,000 will be given an opportunity to pay this on a quarterly basis. We feel this would be more equitable for those employers.

FIRE DAMAGE ASSISTANCE

Hon. Mr. Kerr: On March 28 the hon. members for Quinte (Mr. O’Neil) and Peterborough (Mr. Turner) inquired about what type of provincial assistance might be available following major fires in Trenton and Bancroft. The fires caused considerable property damage and left a number of people homeless. Fire damage in Trenton was estimated at about $2.5 million and in Bancroft at about $800,000. It is suspected that arson may have been involved in the Trenton fires and the fire marshal’s office is investigating.

As I indicated in my initial response, this is a different situation from a natural disaster, like a flood or a severe snowstorm, where provincial assistance is provided at the time. The fires were both quite serious but basically involved private property which may have been insured against such a calamity. The communities were not crippled by the fire, nor were essential municipal services, such as water supply or sewage disposal, destroyed. In the ease of the Bancroft fire, Ontario Provincial Police did provide assistance at the scene, and I know that fire fighters from the Canadian forces base were in attendance at the Trenton fire.

The situation in both communities does not warrant providing provincial compensation to businessmen and property owners who suffered fire loss. I can only assure the Legislature that requests for provincial aid following a natural disaster or major outbreak which cripples the community will continue to be assessed on an individual basis.

SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education. I wonder if the minister is in a position to either clarify, deny, confirm or otherwise comment on an

article which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen, headed “Carleton Board of Education New School Proposals Suffer Serious Setback”? In particular, would he deal with the portion of the

article that alleges his ministry will not approve any new school construction in Carleton until the Carleton board has reached a formal agreement with the Ottawa Board of Education?

Mr. Conway: Since when did you start believing the Citizen, Sid?

Mr. Handleman: I don’t believe it. I’m giving them a chance to deny it.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I’m happy to have my friend draw attention to what the Ottawa Citizen has been publishing, although I must say I have read some stories in the Ottawa Citizen recently about the school situation there which lead me to wonder whether all the facts ever appear in their stories.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

An hon. member: Is this rehearsed?

Hon. Mr. Wells: If the hon. members would like letter and verse on that, I believe there was an

article in there that indicated we were going to give $22 million to the Carleton Board of Education in capital money.

An hon. member: That, obviously, is not true.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That, of course, was an obviously inaccurate story, and something which anyone would realize is not possible and would not be considered by this government.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Not until Brampton gets its share!

Hon. Mr. Wells: In commenting on the

article my friend is talking about, I would say I regret that the approval we had given to the Carleton Board of Education for the new vocational school appears to have suffered setbacks because of the actions of the reeve of Nepean township and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, both of whom appear to be putting further roadblocks in the way of the development of this school.

Mr. Conway: Handleman’s still after Andy Haydon.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I might say that I think that school should proceed, and I and my ministry will be happy to assist the board to clear away any of these additional roadblocks.

In so far as the rest of the present capital program for the Carleton Board of Education is concerned, it has never been, and it is not, my intention that it be held up ad infinitum pending agreement on certain other school accommodation agreements between the Ottawa Board of Education and the Carleton Board of Education. In fact, I was intending to send a letter to the Carleton Board of Education tomorrow, informing them of what we could approve in this year’s program.

Mr. Handleman: Supplementary: Would it be possible, in the approvals given to the Carleton Board of Education, that they would be permitted to reorder their priorities in accordance with any agreements they might reach with the Ottawa Board of Education?

Hon. Mr. Wells: There is always that possibility. I certainly would be happy to agree to any kind of reordering of priorities in the Ottawa-Carleton area. I must say that in my six years as Minister of Education this ranks at the top of those areas where two boards seems to be running hammerhead together and not being able to agree when there is a real need for agreement. On behalf of all the residents of that area and the people of this province, if we’re to save money on educational costs, the kind of agreements that have to go ahead there also have to be affected in other areas of this province.

But this, to my mind, has been one of the most difficult areas, and I hope the trustees will come to some agreement.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Huron-Bruce.

Ms. Gigantes: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment --

Some hon. members: Order.

Mr. Cassidy: There’s a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary; the hon. member for Carleton East.

Ms. Gigantes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the minister, given the way he describes the situation between two boards in the Ottawa-Carleton area, whether he is going to take any initiatives, following along the lines of the Mayo recommendation, to make sure that those intrinsic difficulties between the two boards will not arise every two or three years? In other words, is he going to make some positive decisions following on the Mayo report?

Hon. Mr. Wells: In a couple of weeks I intend to indicate, in a white paper manner, exactly what our opinion should be in so far as the Mayo commission recommendations are concerned.

[Later:]

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege; it has been drawn to my attention that during the answer to a question which I gave a few minutes ago during this session, I referred to a story which had appeared in the Ottawa Citizen and indicated it was an inaccurate story. That story in fact appeared in the Ottawa Journal.

Mr. Breithaupt: Any more inaccuracies?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would therefore like to apologize to the Ottawa Citizen.

Mr. Warner: Don’t apologize, just resign. They’d be very happy too.

Mr. S. Smith: Your inaccuracy is a bad as theirs.

Hon. Mr. Wells: And I am happy that my confidence in their clarity and forthrightness has been restored.

WATER QUALITY REPORT

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. With respect to the Ontario-Ottawa-Quebec water quality study and report on the Ottawa River, completed some months ago, which indicates some serious phosphorous loading problems as well as mercury pollution, does the ministry intend to release the report? If so, when? And if not, why not?

[3:00]

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member asked that question.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s one the minister must have an answer for.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Since I came to the ministry, I have been trying to persuade the sponsors of the study -- the federal government and the government of Quebec -- to release this report. They shared in the cost and, of course, share in the ownership of it. We have not been successful with either the federal government or the government of Quebec in getting their permission to release the report and are therefore reluctant to do it on our own.

Mr. S. Smith: Anticipate; so what is so secret?

Ms. Gigantes: Go ahead.

Mr. S. Smith: Why not?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I can’t really tell the member why not, or when.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary: When was the last time the ministry had contact with the federal government with respect to this report, and does the minister not anticipate that some agreement could be arrived at in the near future in order to release it; and if no agreement can be arrived at, has the ministry considered releasing the report on its own because it participated in the study and participated financially as well?

Ms. Gigantes: The government supported it too.

An hon. member: Take a chance.

Hon. Mr. McCague: We will take those matters under consideration.

Mr. Warner: In the fullness of time.

Hon. Mr. McCague: There was a letter mailed to them recently; there have been two letters to my understanding. I think my predecessor wrote to them --

Mr. Laughren: Try the phone.

Mr. Makarchuk: Try Telex.

Hon. Mr. McCague: -- once or twice. I have written to them once.

An hon. member: Try carrier pigeon.

Hon. Mr. McCague: My guess is that it was a month ago. I think the question was, “Did they get a letter from me?” I have no idea.

An hon. member: They run the postal service too.

Mr. Kennedy: It is only a month since we sent it.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, could the minister tell us whether his ministry, when it entered into this joint project with Quebec and with the federal government, made any agreement whatsoever to keep the results secret, failing unanimous agreement to reveal those results; and if that kind of agreement did occur, why did he enter into such an agreement? If it did not occur, why does he feel constrained from revealing the results?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any agreement. There has been an exchange of letters and at no time has there --

Mr. Warner: It was a gentleman’s agreement, and that lets the minister out.

Hon. Mr. McCague: -- been any indication that there was an agreement that the report would not be released.

Mr. S. Smith: Release it.

Hon. Mr. McCague: That’s all well and good, the hon. member says release it; we would like to do it in good faith if we could. I would agree with the members opposite that if we run into continual resistance, we probably will release it gladly.

Mr. S. Smith: Good.

Hon. Mr. McCague: But that’s “continual resistance.”

PAPER MILL CONTROL ORDERS

Ms. Bryden: With regard to the Minister of the Environment’s statement today in reply to my question on whether Abitibi had met recent control order deadlines, while he did confirm compliance with certain interim deadlines, his statement also contained a very disturbing ministerial pronouncement downgrading the validity and the importance --

Mr. Speaker: I don’t hear a question yet.

Ms. Bryden: -- of earlier guidelines set by the ministry for the pulp and paper industry. I would like to know whether this means that the minister has abandoned the earlier guidelines and is attempting to justify the abandonment of it in this statement; and will he bring out new less stringent guidelines in accord with what appears to be the government’s policy of weakening environmental standards and yielding to the blackmail by the industry, which is threatening to reduce jobs if pollution control is not relaxed?

Hon. Mr. McCague: The answer to both questions is no.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, can the minister also tell us why he continues to rely on guidelines instead of mandatory standards so that we would know what the objectives are for water quality in this province?

Hon. Mr. McCague: That’s a very long answer which I was able to provide to the member in estimates, yesterday, I think it was. I don’t think we need to go into that again at this point.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Minister of Housing has the answer to two questions asked previously.

HOME RENEWAL PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) earlier this week asked about the statistics and how much money had been given to the city of Toronto and to the Metro boroughs under the Ontario home renewal program rental. The statistics are as follows: In 1976-77, the first year of the program, the city of Toronto received $62,000 and the borough of Etobicoke $10,000 from a total budget of $2 million. In 1977-78, of the total $2 million budgeted, none was taken up by Metropolitan Toronto because none was requested by that municipality or its boroughs.

As the House is probably aware, the allocation of funds is based on both needs and on the amount requested by the municipalities. In the case of the city of Toronto, it requested an accountable advance in 1976-77 of $62,000 out of a total application by that municipality of $250,000. The city made no further requests for funds in 1977-78. The Ontario home renewal program rental -- and I stress rental -- was conceived as an experimental, limited-funded program. The province has allocated $4 million for this program during the past two years, and we are now monitoring and evaluating the results.

Based on our findings, we would be in a position to determine what kind of funding would be most appropriate in the future in conjunction with our programs with the federal government.

REXDALE H.O.M.E. PROJECT

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I have the answer to a question by the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip). On Thursday the member inquired about the status of the HOME development at Finch and Silverstone Drive in Rexdale, asking why sodding and other work had not been completed, despite the fact that he had received a letter from the former Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes) last September indicating that the builder would begin work almost immediately.

By way of explanation, I would point out that after the letter was sent to the hon. member, the builder’s financial difficulties increased. A number of legal problems concerning mechanics’ liens occurred and the ministry was unable to move in and complete the landscaping work until the named matter had been settled.

However, I can report to the House today that the Ontario Mortgage Corporation has arranged a settlement with the lien claimants, although the claimants have not yet signed the official documents. This would enable Ontario Mortgage Corporation to complete the landscaping, fencing, sidewalks, driveways and so on. This work should begin as soon as weather permits and sod is available to us. As a matter of fact, OMC did arrange for temporary driveways for the units when it became apparent late last year that there would be no activity over the winter months.

As far as HUDAC is concerned, the home owners will have full protection under the warranty program for interior and exterior deficiencies. When the official documents are signed with the lien claimants, OMC will be committed to completing the necessary landscaping work, and the question of HUDAC finishing this work will no longer be an issue.

HOME RENEWAL PROGRAM

Ms. Bryden: With regard to the minister’s answer to my question about the Ontario home renewal program for rental accommodation, do I take it there is no money in the present estimates before us for this program, in spite of the fact that I am sure there is still a very great need for providing moderate and low-income rental accommodation, certainly in the city of Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: As I have already said, we are doing an assessment of the program in its first two years to see whether we should continue it. At the same time, we are in further discussions with the federal government in some co-operative programs with them on the same basis.

REXDALE H.O.M.E. PROJECT

Mr. Philip: Can the minister tell us whether he knows whether J. C. Byers, the builder that got us into all of this problem, has been deregistered and whether this builder is still building in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Obviously, that is a question that will have to be directed to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations since deregistering is under his ministry.

Mr. Philip: May I redirect that question then? I would think that as Minister of Housing the minister would at least want to know whether J. C. Byers was building more housing for his ministry.

Mr. Speaker: Did the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations hear the question that was directed to him?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: There was a large impediment in front of me, Mr. Speaker. I couldn’t hear it.

Mr. Speaker: Briefly, would you restate the question?

Mr. Philip: To the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, then: In the light of the Minister of Housing’s statement concerning the problems we have had with the home warranty program in the Martingrove and Albion Roads area, and particularly with one construction firm, J. C. Byers, can the minister tell us if he knows why this particular company that has created all of these problems has not been deregistered and whether this builder is still operating in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Of course, I don’t register or deregister any of the builders, as I presume the member well knows.

Mr. Swart: The Minister of Housing just said you did.

Mrs. Campbell: Your minister didn’t know it.

Mr. S. Smith: Answer.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I know the member understands, or I presume he understands, that the home warranty plan is administered outside of my ministry, although they report to and through my ministry.

Mr. Warner: He just handed it to you.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: So if the member has a question about any specific builder, I’m sure he’ll agree that the appropriate place to ask that question is by way of a letter to the new home warranty plan program, not to me.

Ms. Gigantes: Don’t you think it’s important for you to know?

Mr. Wildman: Somebody’s responsible!

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Now, if the member has any complaints about the way his letter has been handled or the way they dealt with any particular builder, I’d be happy to hear from him.

MINISTRY REORGANIZATION

Mr. Blundy: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. In the light of information we have that the Ministry of Community and Social Services has been given a deadline by Management Board to reduce its executive positions by December of this year, and in view of impending changes we are considering in the children’s services branch, would the minister tell us now what positions he contemplates will be removed and what reorganization will be made to accommodate these changes?

Mr. Kerrio: So that’s why the deputy minister has been changed.

Hon. Mr. Norton: As I believe the hon. member knows, the reorganization contemplated in my ministry goes beyond just the children’s services division. We are now, and have been for some time, in receipt of a report from management consultants who were commissioned shortly after my arrival in the ministry.

Mrs. Campbell: Which we are not allowed to see.

Hon. Mr. Norton: We have been engaged in a very detailed review and planning for the reorganization, which I hope to be in a position to announce in some detail within the next month or so. I’m not in a position at this point to answer the specific question the hon. member asked, but I think that answer will be forthcoming at the time of the announcement of any reorganization.

Mr. Blundy: Supplementary: May we assume that the minister is considering the end of the developmental resources branch as such and its absorption by the children’s and social resources branches? If so, will the minister explain to us how we can properly debate proposed legislative changes for children when the ministry implementation framework is not defined or known?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I can assure the hon. member that the framework of which he speaks will be known prior to any formal debate on the specific recommendations on law reform, if those are the changes he is making reference to.

I can indicate to him, as he already is aware from the

summary of the report that I made available to the members of the House and the public, that one of the recommendations that was made on reorganization involved the amalgamation of the adult portion of the developmental services division of the ministry with the social services division, and the amalgamation of the children’s portion of the developmental services with the children’s services division.

That was a recommendation, and when I am in a position to formally announce to the members the proposals we wish to make with respect to reorganization, I think it will become apparent as to which ones we are accepting and which ones we are not.

NO-FAULT INSURANCE

Mr. Samis: A question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: In view of the fact that the new no-fault insurance plan in Quebec puts Ontario drivers involved in an accident in Quebec at a distinct disadvantage in terms of disallowing disability suits for bodily injuries suffered in auto accidents, and in terms of recovery by Ontario residents involved in an accident with a Quebec-insured driver, can the minister tell the House if he has made any representation to his Quebec counterpart, Madame Fayette, with a view to removing these inequities for Ontario drivers?

[3:15]

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have just finished writing a letter to Madame Payette on the subject, and I hope to be meeting with her. This will be news to her because she hasn’t got the letter yet, but the letter invites her to undertake some discussions with us in the next two months; I have suggested perhaps a date in June to review the whole subject matter.

There are many inequities in the plan, as the member has pointed out, one of the most serious of which is, of course, that, in simple terms, contributory negligence is included when an Ontario driver is injured in Quebec, but that isn’t the case with regard to Quebec drivers. So it is an inequity, and I think the best way to deal with it is by way of the route we have selected -- let them know that we are concerned about it, that we think it is an inequity; and so we have asked them to discuss the matter with us. I hope to be going to Quebec sometime in June to discuss it with Madame Payette.

Mr. Samis: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Could the minister advise us if he made any specific suggestions in his communication with Madame Payette? Could he also advise us if he would be prepared to take any initiatives in the event the Quebec government doesn’t agree to any form of reciprocal agreement with Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The answer is that we have pointed out the problem to Madame Payette. I think some of the possibilities are rather obvious. All we have said is -- these are the problems, I think it appropriate that we get together on it to see if we can resolve it. I do know Madame Fayette, having spent some time around the consumer ministers’ conference table with her just a couple of weeks ago.

No, I haven’t proposed specifics, although obviously a reciprocal agreement is one of them which would work with regard to some aspects of it, not with others.

Secondly, I don’t want to speculate on what the future holds because I would hope that the obvious inequities would be dealt with rather fairly by Madame Payette.

Of course, the member may have suggestions for me before I go; and of course from his position of expertise about problems with no-fault and government-run insurance plans --

Mr. Samis: Now, now, none of that.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- his party may well in fact learn something from the obvious inequity that has arisen out of this government-run, no-fault insurance plan.

Mr. Samis: Off the grandstand, Larry.

SAFETY IN LEGISLATIVE BUILDING

Mrs. Campbell: Point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me that the safety of this building is a matter of privilege for this House.

I have just been advised that a large glass globe, 12 inches in diameter, has fallen from the stairwell ceiling at the third floor level, moments after a group of school children passed by. I am advised that this occurrence is identified as having been caused by vibrations from groups on the stairs which regularly causes the globe to fall.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that if that is within the precincts of this House -- and I am not, of course, at all sure because of the confused position as to the responsibility for this House -- I am making this statement as a privilege, because it does not seem to me that the matter of safety should be in doubt and that someone ought to be taking into consideration this dangerous situation.

Mr. Speaker: It is a somewhat gray area but I can assure you that it will be brought to the attention of the people who are responsible for maintenance, and that is the Ministry of Government Services. I will undertake to do that immediately.

REPORTS

STANDING SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Mr. Gaunt from the standing social development committee reported the following resolution:

Resolved: That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Culture and Recreation, be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1979:

Ministry administration program ..... $5,858,000

Heritage conservation program. ...... 17,620,000

Arts support program ..................... 29,657,000

Citizenship and multicultural

support program ................................. 6,628,000

Libraries and community

information program ......................... 40,190,000

Sports and fitness program ............. 13,063,000

Ministry capital support program ..... 26,790,000

Wintario program ........................... 41,000,000

STANDING PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS COMMITREE

Mr. Breaugh from the standing procedural affairs committee presented the committee’s report, which was read as follows, and moved its adoption:

Your committee recommends that it should be the practice of this House when in committee of supply that critics be permitted considerable latitude in speaking to vote 1, item 1, and thereafter that members adhere strictly to the particular vote and item under consideration; and further recommends that the chairman at the beginning of each ministry’s estimates set out a time

schedule for the minister, critics and members.

Your committee further recommends that this committee be empowered to hire staff as it deems necessary to undertake a review of all existing boards, agencies and commissions.

Your committee further recommends that for the commencement of proceedings each day, Mr. Speaker proceed to the chamber via the grand staircase.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I must say it is the first time I have heard this report; we have a motion for adoption, but I would like to move adjournment of the debate.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Mr. Welch moves the adjournment of the debate. Shall the motion carry?

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, is the motion to adjourn debatable?

Mr. Speaker: I’m not sure.

I am advised that it is permissible to debate the motion for the adjournment of the debate only to question the reason.

Mr. Foulds: That is precisely what I wish to do, Mr. Speaker. I wondered if we adjourned the debate on this question at what point the House leader plans to call this business. In other words, I am worried that the debate would not take place. I wouldn’t want it temporarily, permanently hoisted. I think we must have a debate on this matter and that the motion should carry.

Mr. Breaugh: I am frankly a little baffled by all of this. These were simply three items referred to the committee by the Speaker as is contained in the provisional rules. There is provision for that. I don’t think it is that contentious that he comes in this door instead of that door. I don’t really feel that it is contentious that we adhere to the rules of the House in terms of debates during the committee of supply. I didn’t think that it warranted a major debate.

But I want to point out an interesting question: there is virtually no sense, in my mind, of having the Speaker refer these items to procedural affairs. They bring them back in here and they get tabled. Then they will, I hope, at some point in time be debated, but not necessarily so.

If we are going to use the committee as a reference point for the Speaker when he wants a ruling or a recommendation to this House on points of procedure and we bring it back in here, we will simply table all of this stuff until we are blue in the face. We will never get an answer to any of it. If a matter is contentious I can see where the House would wish to debate this fully; but this morning there was, for the first time in the history of the committee, a quorum containing members from all parties. I rather thought, because of the magnificence of that turnout, that we wouldn’t have any difficulty with this.

Mr. Walker: It’s the first time it has met in a year.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the two points, there’s no intention on my part not to proceed to call it. I simply want some time to understand the report. I think I’m entitled to have that.

In the negotiations with respect to House business we are quite open and we don’t catch people by surprise. I must say I hadn’t heard that report until it was read from the table. We have a motion for the adoption of the report. I want to know the implications of all that’s in that report and not just the items referred to by the member for Oshawa. There is another item there with respect to the implications of staff for the committee.

I want to understand what that report means, and I simply have moved adjournment of the debate. I have no intention of not calling it again. Certainly we’ll call it.

Mr. Foulds: When?

Mr. Breaugh: Can we have a date on that?

Hon. Mr. Welch: We do House business every Thursday and I announce it every Thursday. I’m prepared to announce the House business today. This did not come up at the House leaders’ meeting earlier today, so I can’t give the hon. members a date until I discuss it with my colleagues, the other two House leaders.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Welch has moved the adjournment of the debate. Shall the motion carry?

Some hon. members: Yes.

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the adjournment of the debate will please say aye.

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

Mr. McClellan: Do you want a vote on that?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: We don’t have to now. It’s too late.

Mr. Warner: We’re just trying to be cooperative and to make minority government work.

GOVERNMENT MOTION NO. 9

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I am anxious to get some direction from the House. This is private members’ afternoon and I have no right to take away time from the order for private members’ public business. We are doing some legislation tonight that may require the use of staff and I was anxious to put government notice of motion No. 9. This is a substantive motion which really should wait until we come to orders of the day, but I’m wondering whether the house would agree that I could put it now so that we could have this available if this is needed for the legislation for tonight.

Does the hon. member want to wait?

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I would like to recommend to the government House leader that government notice of motion No. 9 be further postponed.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I can’t call it today.

Mr. Nixon: Okay.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Kennedy moved first reading of Bill 56,

An Act to amend the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act, 1971.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to extend the eligibility for compensation under the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act, 1971, to persons who have been imprisoned for an offence and whose convictions are subsequently quashed. The victim would receive compensation for expenses actually incurred and pecuniary losses resulting from the imprisonment.

[3:30]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND

Mr. McNeil moved private member’s motion No. 4:

Resolution: That in the opinion of this House every person who purchases a lot created by a land severance in an agricultural area shall be deemed to be aware of the farming practices of that area and no governmental organization should give effect to a complaint filed by such person concerning those farming practices of which he is deemed to be aware.

Mr. McNeil: I remember seeing an advertisement in a recent issue of an agricultural publication which pictured a farmer guiding a plough pulled by a team of horses. The caption read “Gone are the days.”

No one has to tell farmers that those days are gone, but maybe someone should advise city folks of this very fact. Too many of them have their heads filled with the romantic visions of the work-worn farmer trudging behind his horse-drawn plough. Too many of them are finding out what modern agriculture is really like after they have built a house and moved in next door to or across the road from a modern farm operation.

Farming is a 24-hour-a-day business. It doesn’t take the weekends off and there aren’t any summer holidays. A lot of people know that in theory, but they don’t know what it means in practice until they move into their new country home.

As an example, I would like to mention what happened last fall to our corn producers. The wet weather prevented them from getting into the fields to get their crop off and some of them never got it off at all. Others managed it by working at night. That meant there were tractors, harvesters and combines running during the night. These machines are noisy. That’s one of the differences between the real agricultural world and the pastoral dream that some people seem to have.

Agriculture runs 24 hours a day. Sometimes, and in some seasons, that means harvesting or ploughing or working land late into the night and it almost always means starting very early in the morning. Farmers are often in the fields with their heavy equipment before their city worker commuting neighbour is even up. They are often still out hours after that same commuter has finished his supper, read his newspaper and retired for the night.

What rewards do the farmers get for working all day and half the night? The farmer quite often finds himself slapped with some kind of notice of legal action requiring him to stop making so much noise, to stop keeping his neighbour awake. Can you blame a farmer for getting upset? He works the longest hours of anyone in our society and often earns a depressingly low rate for doing so, while somebody with a 9 to 5 office job and no hard physical labour may earn much more.

Mr. Nixon: Nine-thirty to 3:30.

Mr. McNeil: And to top it all off, the 9 to 5-er finds the farmer’s work

schedule inconvenient and wants it stopped.

These people not only object to the hours a farmer works, they object to the things he has to do. Probably a good example is the handling of manure. Everybody knows in theory that manure is good fertilizer and that good fertilizer makes healthy plants and that healthy plants produce good food. But all that gets forgotten in a real hurry when the white-collar, country home neighbour smells the stuff. You see, everybody knows that it smells, but that’s another one of those inconvenient facts that doesn’t fit the rural picture the ex-urbanites have created for themselves.

Mr. Haggerty: Fresh cut manure.

Mr. McNeil: Yes, they want good food, but no, they don’t want smelly fertilized land next door to their backyard. Somehow the world has to be rearranged so that they can have it both ways. And you know who has to change his way of life don’t you, Mr. Speaker? It is the farmer, the primary producer of food, who is expected to change his spreading and manure-handling operations.

Interjections.

Mr. McNeil: Another thing the recent country dweller from the city doesn’t like is pesticides.

Mr. MacDonald: He is like the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) pitting the rural against the urban.

Mr. Wildman: Who sold the lots?

Mr. MacDonald: Divide and rule.

Mr. McNeil: He knows all about pesticides. He knows about how many parts per million there are or what happens to animals in lab experiments and so on, but he may not know, or what he has forgotten, is what pesticides do to insects. The fact is that perhaps he is too young to remember just where those insects would be if it weren’t for the pesticides. They would be in his canned fruit, that’s where they would be.

Mr. MacDonald: That is what you call emphasis.

Mr. McNeil: If pesticides were banned altogether, and there are people who would like to see that happen, the government might have to set up new standards for the maximum number of worms to be allowed for a can of cherries. Can’t you hear the uproar in the cities if canned fruit started to include canned worms? But without the pesticides, which I freely admit occasionally drift away from the trees which are being sprayed, that’s just what we’d have.

Mr. Wildman: You would really be opening a can of worms.

Mr. Foulds: It would be called your friendly meat and cherry dish.

Mr. McNeil: If people don’t want pesticides drifting over their patios and swimming pools, then they should not build them next to an orchard. If they do build next to an orchard, either they should not complain or they should recognize the need for pesticides in the control of injurious insects and in the production of economical agriculture.

Mr. Swart: Which government has the responsibility for preventing this?

Mr. McNeil: There are other things that the commuter from the countryside to the city doesn’t like about farming. He may object to farm implements being towed along country roads. He may become quite upset if he encounters one on a narrow concession road. All of a sudden, he is backed up behind a combine or another slow-moving agricultural vehicle. The farmer is probably only going half a mile but for that half mile the car driver may have to drop from 50 miles per hour to 15 or 20 miles per hour. He starts tailgating and quite often becomes very impatient.

By the time the farmer turns his machine off the road, the commuter is only a couple of minutes behind schedule, but his blood pressure may be going through the roof of his car.

There is a remedy for that and we all know what it is. Get the implements off the highways and the concessions. Set up a maximum width for vehicles and enforce it to the last inch. The farmer loses money in fines and some premium time while being stopped on concessions and highways. Then he winds up having to make some complicated and expensive arrangements getting his machinery to the spot where he needs it. He might even have to get new machinery. All the harassment is just because a salesman or a personnel manager or accountant is going to be a couple of minutes late for a meeting at the office.

Mr. Bradley: Who allowed that?

Mr. McNeil: Since the big exodus from the city to the country began, farmers have been subjected to everything from abusive telephone calls to court action simply because they were going about the business of farming in the accepted modern method. The smells, the noise, the sprays, the dust and heavens knows how many other inconveniences, have aroused the ire of the ex-urban dweller with visions of pastoral fields floating before his eyes.

The ex-urbanite has even been known to object that a newly constructed farm structure spoils his view. The landscape with a placid cow under a willow tree has given way to the feed lot with manure-collection systems and the milk cows with automated milking systems. In all these situations, the farmer is the heavy. He isn’t doing anything differently from the way he has always done it. He is only going about his legitimate business on his own property, growing the food we all need.

Mr. Wildman: Plus selling lots.

Mr. McNeil: All of a sudden he has to justify his operations because somebody finds them inconvenient -- not dangerous or damaging but just inconvenient.

Then we have the sorry spectacle of hearings and orders and all the trappings of a regulatory society. And who has to change? Of course the farmer, who’s been there all along.

Mr. Mackenzie: I’m glad you said Tory.

Mr. Wildman: Did you say a Tory society?

Mr. McNeil: He may well be farming land his father or grandfather farmed but now he’s in somebody’s way and he has to do the changing.

Mr. Conway: Mitch was right.

Mr. McNeil: I remember when the first draft of the code of practice came along. It was supposed to prevent houses and feed lot operations from being built too close to each other. In the way it was written, all the restrictions were put on the farmer. He had to put his barn here, his manure there.

Mr. Swart: Whose government is responsible?

Mr. McNeil: He often had to go out of his way at considerable cost to avoid a house that was being built long after he started farming and one that should never have been built there in the first place. Well, I am happy to say the code was amended somewhat to put more of the onus on the former urban, now country, resident. The government’s foodland guidelines should help to keep agricultural and rural residential developments apart, but the problems I mentioned are always going to exist unless it is made perfectly clear to the non-farm rural resident that he, not the farmer, is the interloper, that he is the one out of place in the rural setting, not the producer of food.

The prime use of the countryside is to produce food. That’s the only place we can produce it in any quantity and of high quality. In that sense we might call a lot of the countryside a production line, almost a factory. Well, if someone wants to plunk a house down in the middle of a production line, he should be prepared to accept the fact that there are going to be some noisy, smelly inconveniences. When you think that farmers are now outnumbered by non-farm rural residents, something like four to one, we have to wonder how long farmers are going to be able to fend off onslaughts on agriculture.

Mr. MacDonald: Who permitted this development?

Mr. McNeil: People who outnumber them and do all the complaining have the time, and often the money; they are not farmers.

Mr. Laughren: Who allowed all these people to move into the country?

Mr. McNeil: They have the money to spend on harassments and hearing and lawyers.

Mr. Swart: Do you think there has been something wrong with the laws?

Mr. McNeil: Farming doesn’t leave much time for the farmer to waste defending himself against these attacks. He has crops to plant, livestock to feed, equipment to repair. His evenings and weekends are fully occupied by the same work that kept him busy every day all week. It makes one wonder how long farmers are going to bother to farm with all the harassment. Why not just sell the land off to a bunch of ex-urbanites and retire?

Mr. Nixon: Right, turn it into a sod farm or something like that.

Mr. C. Taylor: Pave it, pave it.

Mr. McNeil: Luckily for the people of Ontario, it hasn’t come to that yet.

Mr. Nixon: It’s coming fast though.

Mr. McNeil: But it will, it will --

Mr. Hodgson: It will unless you support Ron’s bill.

Mr. McNeil: -- if the farmer’s prior rights are not recognized.

Mr. Ruston: Bring on the violins.

Mr. McNeil: If there’s no reward but harassment for the responsibilities he undertakes, who could blame him if he just gave up those responsibilities?

Mr. Nixon: And went into politics.

Mr. McNeil: The farmer’s fundamental position --

Mr. Ruston: Get another wheelbarrow.

Mr. McNeil: -- is morally unassailable. He has the right to farm in the accepted manner --

Mr. Samis: How many years in politics now -- 19 years?

Mr. McNeil: -- not only because he was there long before any of the residential development showed up but because he is performing the most basic --

Mr. Ruston: McNeil for leader.

Mr. McNeil: -- of all human activities, providing the life supporting food we all must have. You can’t get along without it.

Mr. Wildman: You can’t get along without basic activity.

Mr. McNeil: I think it’s high time that his position was made legally unassailable as well, in recognition of his vital contribution to society.

Mr. MacDonald: I don’t know who your ghost writer is, but he is interesting and amusing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member for Elgin wish to reserve any time at the end of the debate?

Mr. McNeil: No, I don’t think so.

Mr. Eaton: How can anybody vote against that?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member for Huron-Middlesex.

Mr. Riddell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, with due respect to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture and Food -- and I do respect the member for Elgin (Mr. McNeil), although I held him in far greater esteem when he was a Liberal --

Mr. McNeil: That was at the turn of the century.

Mr. Hodgson: You weren’t born then, Jack.

Mr. Riddell: -- but I think this resolution is really nothing more than an excuse to correct a serious problem facing farmers that this government has failed to come to grips with. I am inclined to think that the member’s lottery number came up and he was hard pressed or discouraged by his cabinet colleagues to introduce either a private member’s bill or a resolution that had some teeth in it and which would provide a solution to the rather serious problem facing farmers today, including the restrictions which were placed on them by guidelines handed down by this government.

[3:45]

Admittedly, this resolution gives us a chance to voice our concerns about the restrictions that the agricultural code of practice which the member alluded to places on farmers; and I am sure this was the motivating factor behind this resolution. I might point out the irony of this whole matter. The question of whether the code of practice is government policy or merely a guideline is debatable. In any case, there are three ministries that are pushing pretty hard for it -- the agricultural ministry, the environment ministry and the housing ministry.

The Ministry of Housing is trying to get the code of practice into official plans. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food is not only trying to get the agricultural code of practice into official plans, but is very keen on getting it plugged into municipal bylaws. So we have a parliamentary assistant trying to protect the farmers’ rights by discouraging the inclusion of the code of practice into municipal bylaws; and on the other hand we have the Minister of Agriculture and Food endeavouring to have it enshrined in the municipal bylaws. This is the irony which I alluded to.

Fortunately, there have been no concrete decisions made by the minister at this time. I would suspect the reason is that there are a couple of legal questions on whether the code of practice can be plugged into zoning bylaws. I believe there are two or three municipalities that have incorporated it into bylaws, but it has not been tested legally as yet. I believe there is also an administrative problem.

If the code of practice was incorporated into official plans and municipal bylaws, then there would not seem to be any need for this resolution. However, I would hope that the agricultural code of practice in its present form would not be incorporated into zoning bylaws.

I want you to listen to what Peter Hannam, president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, had to say about the matter: “Scattered rural development takes acres out of production, but has a much greater impact on a farmer’s ability to produce food through its impact on farming efficiency. When people move to the country, they seem to want to live in a park and appear unwilling to accept the odours and noise of farming operations. Under the Ontario government’s agricultural code of practice, which is being enforced by many rural municipalities, a farmer cannot expand or build a new livestock barn within smelling distance of a neighbour’s house.

“It is forcing many farmers to either curtail expansion or build new facilities that cost in excess of $100,000 in remote areas on their property. if equitably enforced by municipalities, new revisions in the code should halt development of houses near barns as well. Nevertheless, the problem remains. The rights of people to complain about odours are enshrined in local bylaws; farm expansion is hampered, and the recycling of livestock waste by spreading it on fields is greatly curtailed.

“Municipal anti-noise bylaws are another threat to modern agricultural practices and tend to hamper a farmer’s need both to work around the clock in certain seasons and to adapt to newer and larger equipment.

“Scattered rural development compounds the complaints. The traditional rural society deteriorates, and the infrastructure supporting agriculture is Inst. Farmers lose the flexibility which allows them to expand and adapt to new technology. Because the root of this problem is scattered rural development, a move by municipalities in farming areas will help alleviate problems in the future.”

I recognize the aim of the code of practice is to provide some guidelines for future expansion of livestock facilities, as well as non-farm development. However, I believe the code in its present form is far from perfect and it needs revision. It should not be enshrined in municipal bylaws, as is now proposed. It should only be used as a guideline by municipalities in their land-use planning activity.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Have you got some suggestions?

Mr. Riddell: Another matter I would like to draw to your attention is that the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman) in a press release of March 20, 1975, at a time when he was the environment minister, stated: “Farmers who are only carrying out normal farm procedures have nothing to fear from officials of the Ministry of the Environment.” He also mentioned the existence of an “independent body called the farm pollution advisory committee, which consists of four farmers and is called in to assess farm and environmental situations if a farmer refuses to accept the advice of a Ministry of the Environment official.”

Safeguards do exist for farmers who are subject to complaints or continually harassed by complaints and the farmers do have recourse to appeal a decision by a Ministry of the Environment official. This further illustrates the redundancy of this resolution.

One final point, and one that we cannot ignore, is that this resolution goes against a number of other laws presently in existence, namely, the Environmental Protection Act, the Environmental Assessment Act, the municipal noise legislation and the common law.

In closing, I don’t believe that we as legislators should initiate any action to deprive a person of his or her right to complain about a nuisance. There are laws in existence which give people these rights and there are procedures in effect whereby complaints are handled. For this reason, I don’t feel that I can support the resolution, but I can appreciate its intent.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my conclusion is a little different -- and let me state it at the outset. I think the objective of the resolution is right in principle, but I think the possibility of its implementation, given this government and its policies, is nil. That leaves one in a rather perplexed position as to what one does with the resolution.

But let me go back to the beginning of my remarks, if I may. There is a problem here: The problem of the conflict between rural residential living by people who used to live in the cities and the normal conduct of agriculture.

The hon. member for Elgin, who has introduced the resolution, has spelled out that conflict in almost humorous terms. He has reduced it to smells and noise. He has exaggerated it and appealed to the offended senses of people in the farm community who have had inadequate laws to cope with it -- laws that were produced by this government. So he has ended up by sort of appealing to the farmers and pitting them against those city slickers who are coming out and intervening in his community. But he’s ignored the fact that the problem is a problem created by this government in the inadequacy of its laws.

I just want to suggest in my remarks two areas where the government should have done something. One has been dealt with at some length by the hon. member for Huron-Middlesex. That is, if you have a code of practice, that code of practice presumably is going to reduce, if not eliminate, the conflict between rural residential dwellers and normal operations of agriculture, whether it be noise, whether it be smells, whether it be farm machinery on the roads or what.

If there are inadequacies in that code of practice, then zero in on that code of practice. If it is the code of practice that is so weak as to be merely guidelines that have no real effectiveness, then again we have a problem which is on the government’s doorstep -- to strengthen that code of practice and give it some legislative backing, so that it can become effective. But let me go one step further, because I think it’s even more complicated than that.

We had a study done in the county from which the last member comes, Huron county, Countryside Planning, in which they laid down for the guidance of this government what I still believe is the essential first step in sensible, effective land-use planning out across this province. Their proposition was that in Huron county and generally speaking across the province, there should be an examination of land categories so that the government can designate what is an agricultural priority area, what is an urban priority area, what may be a recreational priority area, and what in some areas might be a forestry or a mining priority area.

Despite the fact that this government put in $80,000 along with approximately $40,000 from Huron county to do that study, the study has lain there on the shelf; it has been examined and used as a guide in Northumberland county, but it has never been seized upon as a pattern for this government to act in moving towards effective land use across the province.

Interestingly enough, when he was a backbencher, the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. McCague) introduced a bill, which was picked up by my colleague the hon. member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) and introduced just this past month in the House,

an Act to provide for the Designation and Retention of Foodlands.

Let me remind you of one

section of that bill which would come to grips with the problem that I want to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker.

Section 2 of the bill reads as follows:

“Every planning authority shall within two years following proclamation of this Act,

“(

a) survey and clarify all agricultural land situate within the planning area in accordance with the classifications established and defined in studies and maps prepared pursuant to the Agricultural and Rural Development Act (ARDA) (Canada);

“(

b) prepare a plan designating as foodlands those areas which can be defined as such and recommend such plan to the council of the designated municipality for adoption;

“(

c) develop planning criteria primarily designed to promote retention and protection of foodlands but which will permit non-agricultural use where justified.”

In other words, if we had a program with some legislative backing from this government such as this bill envisaged -- a bill originally introduced by a man who is now in the cabinet -- we could move to the designation of agricultural lands and we would have a framework within which the objective of this resolution could be implemented, because if a person severed a lot in an area that was an agricultural priority area, then what the hon. member has said in that resolution could legitimately be implemented.

If a person operated in such an area and he got a severance, he would know that he would have no rights in the future to complain with regard to smells or noises or something that emanates from the normal operation of the agricultural industry.

However, if he got a lot in an area that is designated urban -- that is, ultimately it is going to be subject to urban development, though agriculture may continue in it for 10, 15 or 20 years -- then, of course, he would know in advance that he could never get that kind of protection.

Out in the agricultural priority area, I would be inclined to agree with the suggestion -- it wasn’t a firm assertion -- by the hon. member for Huron-Middlesex, that maybe there should be no severances at all for what you might call purely rural residential living, that the only kind of severance you would permit would be a severance in relation to somebody who is living and working in the agricultural industry -- and not a city slicker who just comes out to live in that pastoral park, as the hon. member for Elgin was calling up for us to view.

In other words, without the kind of moving towards a clarification of land categories with priority areas for agriculture, and without the granting of legislative backing to that, then the noble sentiments that are expressed in this resolution remain nothing more than noble sentiments, like so much of this government’s profession of protecting of prime agricultural land.

I am a little perplexed. I think I would be inclined to vote for the resolution because it is the kind of resolution that speaks to a problem. But I assert with great vigour that it is impossible to fulfil the objective of this resolution because of the inadequacies of this government’s record (

a) in relationship to the code of practice and (

b) in terms of its refusal to come to grips with guidelines having the backing of legislation in the protection of prime agricultural land in this province.

Mr. Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of this resolution. Ontario has a code of the countryside, and it is not spelled out in any statutes. It would carry little weight in court. As a matter of fact, only those who live by the code of the countryside know that it exists. Those people are a minority now, a very important minority. They feed the rest of us who don’t live and work in the countryside. They are special people. Mind you, I don’t think farmers will ever become an endangered species, but they deserve special consideration from those who live in the countryside without living by its code.

[4:00]

Our farmers need every break they can get to continue their demanding and largely thankless job of feeding the rest of us. People who move to the country from our cities and towns are generally unaware of the code by which neighbourly disagreements have traditionally been settled in rural Ontario. When they violate the code, it is the farmer who usually gets the short end of the stick. In my opinion, the principle of this resolution will go a long way towards redressing this sort of imbalance.

I suppose the problems of farming in the shadow of urban expansion first gained prominence in the Haldimand-Norfolk and Niagara areas. People who had moved next door to poultry farms complained about the smell and a lot of really bitter disputes developed.

From 1968 to 1970 the Ministry of the Environment office for Haldimand county was receiving 50 to 60 calls a month complaining about farm operations. It also received a petition with 386 signatures.

People from the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food deserve a lot of credit for the way they handled that situation. They got farmers and their non-farming neighbours together to discuss their differences calmly and sensibly. They persuaded livestock operators to stop spreading waste in June and July and install holding tanks instead. And they also offered a crash course in the facts of life in rural Ontario.

As a result of these government efforts, only one of the hundreds of disputes had to be taken to court. Where one farmer used to be the target of complaints for 26 other property owners, nowadays only four or five complaints a year are received throughout the whole area.

Another result was the agriculture code of practice. It was devised jointly by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, the Ministry of the Environment and the livestock industry. It contains guidelines for farmers in the storage and spreading of manure to minimize pollution of aft, ground water or surface streams.

It also sets out guidelines for the location of residents in the vicinity of livestock operations. In 1976 the code of practice was revised to include what is known as the minimum distance separation formula. It is used to calculate the appropriate distance between, say, a barn and the neighbour’s patio barbecue.

The advantage of the formula is that it applies not only to a new or expanding livestock operation locating near an existing building but also to other new uses proposed near a livestock farm. Thus, it works both ways for the protection of both the farmer and the non-farmer. The agriculture code of practice is included in the government’s foodland guidelines for municipal councils and planners. Its provision will apply in any new or amended official plan. As the code of the countryside is overtaken in the urban shadow, the code of practice is replacing it as a more effective way of reducing conflicts between neighbours about barnyard smells.

But what of the other conflicts that can develop between farmers and non-farmers? All sorts for unforeseen problems are cropping up in our changing countryside. Take the basic question of line fences.

Farmers have traditional ways of sharing the upkeep of fences that separate their properties. In my riding they usually face each other at the mid-way point of the fence and each assumes responsibility for the

section to his right. That is the code of the countryside. It may not be the code of the newcomer to the countryside.

Good fences makes good neighbours. Sure, but good neighbours make good fences too. Every good farmer inspects his fence every spring and makes any necessary repairs. To the non-farmer that chore is not so important. As a matter of fact, I have heard of instances where city-reared people actually waited until their sections of the fence fell down before they made repairs. These same people are the kind who hit the roof when they find their neighbour’s cow in their garden. They don’t ask themselves whose fault it is.

Often they are also the kind of people who take their complaints to their local council and there is a good chance that nowadays many councillors are also unfamiliar with the code of the countryside. That’s another strike against our farmers.

Maybe a farmer’s animals will stray through a hole in the fence, but his farm dogs rarely turn killer. When poultry and sheep are attacked by dogs they are usually dogs that weren’t raised in the country and trained to stay away from livestock. I heard of a case in Simcoe county where two dogs newly arrived from the city got into a barn full of sheep. They were responsible for 21 deaths. When the farmer caught them at it, drenched in the sheeps’ blood, they immediately reverted to friendly household pets. One of them came to lick his hand.

Dogs can also worry sheep to death, quite literally. Even if they don’t slash at the mother, the fear they cause often brings on abortions at lambing time. When abandoned or runaway dogs mate with coyotes, they start hunting in packs and that’s when they start killing calves.

It’s difficult to prove responsibility for these attacks. The code of the countryside calls for a farmer to keep his dogs under control. If it turns killer, he expects it to be shot, but nowadays he finds a lot more sympathy for the dead dog than for the ewes and lambs it slaughters.

I could go on at length. I could tell about a York county farm wife who got so many abusive phone calls about insecticide spraying that her husband sold the farm. I could tell about farmers who get a hard time because their farm equipment moves down the road too slowly to please the commuter next door who’s hurrying to work in the city. I know of a farmer who no longer ploughs his fields in the fall because the owner of an expensive new house across the road complained about the dust.

I could tell how our Minister of Agriculture and Food had to ask Pickering council to forget an anti-noise bylaw for a while so farmers could operate their corn-dryers late at night after last year’s wet harvest.

However, I hope it’s clear that the farmers need a better break from our society. I’m not a farmer, but see a clear need for the provisions of this resolution. I hope it has the support of all the members.

Mr. McKessock: It is a pleasure for me to rise and support this resolution. In this House, it is very seldom that we can debate something on agriculture. When something like this comes along, it gives us a chance to support our life in the rural areas. But I am a bit concerned. The resolution states: “That in the opinion of this House, every person who purchases a lot created by land severance in an agricultural area shall be deemed to be aware of the farming practices of that area and no governmental organization should give effect to a complaint filed by such person concerning those farming practices of which he is deemed to be aware.”

If this is passed, will it really have some teeth or will it be like the government’s farm land preservation program which works in one area and doesn’t work in another and is very discriminatory across the province, if it is like that, then there wouldn’t be much good come of it. But I certainly hope that this resolution would pass as well and something would come of it.

Most of us who have farms have some land that is not fit for agriculture but is certainly fit for a residence. I think that this offers the farmer a little bit of extra cash if he can sell this lot to somebody from the city who really wants to come out and live in the country. But they must be aware when they move to the country that there are a few things that they have to put up with now and again. Those are the facts of farm life, like spreading manure or noise or what have you, that have been mentioned.

Newcomers, when they do come to the rural areas, have a tendency to go along with everything at the start, and then when they get well-established decide that it’s time they start to complain. I think the intent of this resolution is to put a stop to that. I know that there have been some farmers put out of business in the past by complainers, because they quite often have more financial resources than the farmers have. They can go to court, and when things go to court I sometimes lose my faith in that direction. It depends on who has the most money.

If we haven’t got some law to prevent people taking things like this to court or prevent them from complaining, then farmers are going to continue to be harassed by the newcomers in our area, and eventually they will probably be stopped from coming. This isn’t what we want. We certainly want to share our beautiful country with other people as long as they accept what we have when they get there.

Mr. Makarchuk: You have been giving it away completely.

Mr. McKessock: I have said before that something like this should happen. It should be put on the deed when a person purchases a lot on a farm, so it is right there in black and white. Maybe this would be better than this resolution. Perhaps the government could consider that in the future.

Actually, they should really be pleased about the odd smell that comes along. I have told everybody, these smells don’t hurt them, it’s just good nitrogen going through the air. Actually that’s what it is -- and it has really cured many an ill farmer too, I don’t know whether you are aware of that or not, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Makarchuk: Suggest it to Dennis Timbrell. Maybe it’s the answer to his problem.

Mr. Wildman: He produces enough of it himself.

Mr. McKessock: That’s right.

A farmer told me recently, he spent about three months in a Toronto hospital and said he was going to die if he didn’t get out. One of his neighbours told him if he could just get home and get out to the barn and get a smell of that barn he’d be fine. He said he got home, got to the barn and was better in no time.

Mr. Samis: Ronnie, you could have mentioned that.

Mr. Eaton: Look at all the money we can save on OHIP.

Mr. Wildman: Tear down the hospitals, build more barns.

Mr. Makarchuk: Says something about the state of medical care in Toronto, doesn’t it?

Mr. Conway: Just give him one of Reuben’s speeches.

An hon. member: Is that the Liberal’s solution to the OHIP problem?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Watch it, smarty.

Mr. McKessock: And also, perhaps, they should not criticize this smell if the farmer is spreading manure close to the line fence with his modern equipment and it flows over into his neighbour’s garden. The neighbour will find that his onions will be much better this year than they were the year before. So there are benefits to the smell; the people from the city must be aware of that. If I move to the city, which I did a couple of years ago for the biggest part of every week, I have to put up with the smog down here and if I complain, nobody does a thing about it.

Mr. Wildman: Not even the Minister of the Environment.

Mr. McKessock: So similarly, when the city people move to the country they should have to put up with much less harmful smells and the bit of noise we have periodically in the country.

Mr. Swart: I rise to speak on this resolution and to say immediately that although there has been quite a bit of levity in the debate the subject matter that this resolution deals with is exceedingly important in the farm community and, of course, to the long-term welfare of this province. Those problems and the injustice to farmers were, I think, very well outlined by the member for Elgin and others. We know there is a real conflict between the non-farming resident in the rural area and the farmer in those areas.

I am a little bit concerned that the member for Elgin may have deliberately intended to heighten this a bit and put all the blame on the urban dweller who now lives out in the rural area. But in any event, everyone in this House, I believe, recognizes the problems that exist and solutions should be applied. The farmer certainly recognizes the problems and they are a major issue in every presentation that is made to government. The brief presented in 1976 to the Premier and the cabinet of Ontario, which was also presented to the other caucuses, states “farmers are suffering from conflicting non-farm uses of land.

We are restricted by neighbours who have voluntarily moved next to us and now find barn smells and machinery noises bothersome. In addition, these intrusions create considerable fragmentation of rural communities to the detriment of farming enterprises. Farmers are not adequately protected from these threats,” so on and so on. I agree with that description of the problems that exist for our farming community because of the non-farm residents in those areas.

Even the government recognizes those problems in its green paper. I won’t take time to quote from it, but it goes into quite some detail in outlining the problems that face the farmers and the hardship that it is for the farm operation.

[4:15]

So the question before this House is not in any way a question of a recognition of this problem. The question before this House is really whether we want to do anything about it.

I say quite frankly I question the sincerity of the member for Elgin in really wanting to do something substantial about this with the type of measure that he has introduced in this private member’s resolution. All of this problem has come about while the present government has been in power -- all of it, during those 34 years. The government had the power to prevent it and nothing was done.

They have the power to amend the code of practice, as suggested by the member for Huron-Middlesex. They have done nothing about that. The code of practice, in fact, inflicts more hardship on the farmer.

Now we have this resolution. And let there be no doubt about it, the resolution we have before us is completely meaningless. After it’s debated today, things will be exactly the same. There will be no change in legislation. We’re all in agreement on the principle of this resolution to start with, and not a single action is going to be taken to change things.

Mr. Makarchuk: So why doesn’t the government bring in a new bill? Tell Bill to bring the bill in.

Mr. Swart: Yes. And you know, the member can’t lose. He really can’t lose on this. Because if it passes, it’s a nice thing to send around to the farm community and say, “Look at what I’ve been trying to do.”

Mr. Makarchuk: Here comes the Premier (Mr. Davis). Tell him to bring in the bill. Where is the bill, Bill?

Mr. Swart: If it loses and the two opposition parties combine to vote against it,