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

December 20, 1974

29th Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L162 - Fri 20 Dec 1974 / Ven 20 déc 1974

WATER TREATMENT

CONDOMINIUM MORTGAGES

FOOD PRICES

BRADLEY-GEORGETOWN HYDRO CORRIDOR

NON-RETURNABLE CONTAINERS

NOISE REGULATIONS

USE OF ASBESTOS IN PUBLIC PLACES

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL STANDARDS

ASBESTOS SPRAYING CONTROLS

ASBESTOS IN DRINKING WATER

NATURAL GAS FLARES

FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY STUDY

LOCATION OF HYDRO STATIONS

SUNDAY TRUCKING OPERATIONS

REVOLUTIONARY PAMPHLETS

NON-PAYMENT OF EMPLOYEES

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO ACT

REPORT OF DOG FOOD FED TO CHILDREN

THUNDER BAY STUDY

BRADLEY-GEORGETOWN HYDRO CORRIDOR

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS ACT

THIRD READINGS

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ACT (CONCLUDED)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ACT

PROVINCIAL PARKS MUNICIPAL TAX ASSISTANCE ACT

COUNTY OF OXFORD ACT

THIRD READINGS

MINISTRY OF CULTURE AND RECREATION ACT

THIRD READING

MOTORIZED SNOW VEHICLES ACT (CONCLUDED)

MOTORIZED SNOW VEHICLES ACT

THIRD READING

ROYAL ASSENT

The House met at 10 o’clock, a.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

WATER TREATMENT

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, over the past few days much has been said and written about water treatment, water contamination and related scientific and medical research. I am pleased to see this public interest in this very important area of environmental protection, because it gives me the opportunity to discuss with the hon. members some activities of which Ontario can be proud.

We are pioneers in environmental protection in this province, particularly with regard to water treatment and water pollution control. I can say, and without fear of contradiction, that there’s not a system in the world better than the one we have right here in Ontario.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Applause, applause from across there.

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): Come on, fellas.

Hon. W. Newman: This province established the Ontario Water Resources Commission in 1957 to protect the water we use.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): The government has been watching the problem from afar for 30 years.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We thought the minister was talking about patronage.

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): The Liberals are the ones who know all about that.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The experts.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Could we have the minister’s statement?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The “big blue machine.” Does the Premier know what that is? It is a patronage machine.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Whose list in Ottawa is the Leader of the Opposition on?

Hon. W. Newman: We enjoy one-fifth of the world’s supply of fresh water here, which imposes a considerable amount of responsibility on us. My predecessors in the OWRC and the Ministry of the Environment have met this obligation well, and I intend to continue this tradition.

At this time, we have 438 water treatment plants serving 307 municipalities in Ontario, and 88 of these plants are owned and operated by the province. Over the past two decades we have built up a substantial wealth of scientific and technical expertise in water protection and water treatment. We have millions invested in scientific equipment and a staff whose knowledge and experience in water pollution control cannot be measured in mere dollars.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Hurray! Best in the world.

Hon. W. Newman: Four years ago, an $11 million major expansion was planned for our laboratory and research facilities in Rexdale. This expansion is completed and scientific equipment worth about $2.5 million has been delivered to add to our existing facilities. We maintain the most up-to-date research programme possible to protect our water. This is a basic and essential public service.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): What about arsenic in the Moira River?

Hon. W. Newman: Our research and analysis programme has been developed to the point where we can detect and measure the most minute trace organic and inorganic elements in water samples. In fact, our ability to measure these elements has outstripped the medical profession’s present level of knowledge of their effects, good or bad, on human health.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): That is not what they say about asbestos.

Mr. Shulman: How about arsenic?

Hon. W. Newman: This research is continually being applied in our operational programmes, benefiting our treatment plants and municipal plants. But before we apply a new process we make sure all the research and testing on that process is done, and we know the effects of the process.

For example, from time to time we hear critics of chlorination advocating other treatment methods. We have tried the alternatives, from ozone treatment through gamma irradiation.

Ozone treatment has its advocates, but the chlorine method we use has at least two basic advantages. First, we have the experience and expertise to deal with it, and we know how to use it to best advantage.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Who wrote that for the minister?

Hon. W. Newman: We still have no certain knowledge of all the reactions that can take place between ozone and water and its trace contents.

The other basic advantage of chlorine is its persistence. When you add this element to water, it stays with it. This means it not only purifies the water, it purifies the treatment plant, the mains and the entire distribution through the plumbing and taps of our homes.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Great. Just great.

Mr. Breithaupt: Sounds like the minister’s monthly bulletin.

Hon. W. Newman: Well, those fellows brought it on. Ozone does not persist in water and so can’t provide this cleansing action.

Mr. Shulman: And it doesn’t produce carcinogens.

Hon. W. Newman: However, we are still investigating this and other methods to maintain our high standard of treatment quality. The care and study we put into water treatment goes into all our water management programmes. I don’t think any intelligent person could question that the Great Lakes are around the corner in terms of pollution, and getting better every year.

Ontario, I am proud to say, was the prime mover in getting international action on these lakes under way. We have consistently done our best, with outstanding co-operation from the municipalities, to meet our obligation to clean up the Great Lakes, and we have worked closely with our counterparts in Ottawa, in Washington, and in the Great Lakes states on the total cleanup programme.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I can get that copied and sent out to all the Tories.

Hon. W. Newman: When I assumed responsibility for this ministry I inherited this and I intend to continue.

I would also like, Mr. Speaker, to quote from a medical report regarding asbestos ingestion, because I think there has been a great deal of concern on the part of the public of this province.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I understand it is good for you.

Hon. W. Newman: I notice the member for High Park is drinking water this morning. I am pleased to see him doing it.

Mr. Shulman: It is from a distillery; it is okay.

Mr. Breithaupt: We can see through that too, but people can’t swallow it.

Hon. Mr. Snow: He usually drinks wine, doesn’t he? Imported wine, in fact.

Hon. W. Newman: I would just like to quote briefly from this report, Mr. Speaker:

“Three different laboratories independently investigated the ability of ingested mineral fibres to penetrate tissues in rats. All concluded that there was no evidence of tissue penetration by ingested mineral fibres.”

Mr. Breithaupt: What do rats know?

Hon. W. Newman: The report says:

“These experimental observations are supported by the findings in coal and hard rock miners who swallow, during their lifetime, nearly 100 times the amounts of dust that is stored in their lungs. The lymph nodes of these people show no evidence of storage of the ingested dust particles at all. Animals fed asbestos over much of their lifetime and allowed to live to the age of cancer production failed to provide evidence of carcinogenic effects.”

This research was done by three different universities -- one in the US, one in England and one in Scotland.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): That does it; I go back to water today.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Housing.

CONDOMINIUM MORTGAGES

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to my statement of yesterday and correct an address. I was incorrect when I stated that the Morris family purchased their initial unit in Crescent Town and their subsequent units in Crescent Town. The address should have been Flemingdon Woods.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

The Leader of the Opposition.

FOOD PRICES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’d like to ask the Premier for some clarification. Is he familiar with the report released yesterday by the federal Food Prices Review Board that indicates that we can expect a further 16 per cent increase in the cost of food in the province? While I do intend to ask some questions of the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr.

Stewart), can the Premier clearly indicate what machinery we have for the review of these increases as they come along to see that the increases are justified, if they are, to see that there is not undue profiteering at any level between the producer and the consumer, and to see that this increase of 16 per cent, if it does happen -- and apparently it will -- is going to accrue at least to the primary producers in some way as an improvement in their economic position?

The question is this, really, of the head of the government before I put it to the Minister of Agriculture and Food: What machinery is presently in place to keep these matters at least under public review?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think that question should be more appropriately directed to the Minister of Agriculture and Food and to the minister, who is unfortunately a little under the weather at the moment, who has this matter within his jurisdiction. In that he is not here, I will endeavour to get an answer from his ministry for the Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture and Food might have some general observations, with his very great and sincere interest in the primary producers when it comes to food.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: If I might direct the question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food, is it his intention to upgrade the Food Council, which is an arm of the ministry that has been available and in operation for six years now, as the major review body for food prices and particularly to see that between the producer and the consumer there is not an undue level of profiteering and that these reviews can be carried out publicly so that the people concerned, from the producer to the consumer, are not only going to see but going to believe that the force and the authority of the government of this province is going to be involved in such a review?

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Mr. Speaker, we haven’t intended to include within the terms of reference of the Food Council a review of all food prices. We have now a federal Food Prices Review Board under the direction of Mrs. Plumptre. We believe that if food prices are going to be reviewed they should be reviewed at the national level, and that has been going on. I think, with few exceptions, the reports that Mrs. Plumptre has submitted -- and there are many of them -- would indicate that there doesn’t appear to be undue profiteering in this particular regard.

I was asked a question a few weeks ago by the member for Scarborough West (Mr. Lewis) concerning markup in beef prices. We did a review over the first 45 weeks of 1974 of five meat outlets in this province which doesn’t indicate there is any great increase whatever in the markup between what the outlet pays for the beef and what the retailer sells it for -- that is, the consumer purchasing price. I answered the question a day or two ago in the House. That was done by the Food Council. The Food Council are not equipped to get into the field of examining such matters in detail.

But I would point out, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Ontario Milk Commission, for instance, that every price increase in Ontario on fluid milk goes before the Ontario Milk Commission in that the producer price is worked out with the processors’ council and the Ontario Milk Marketing Board then that price has to be ratified by the Milk Commission. There have been times in the past when there have been differences of opinion.

I would suppose that as far as milk is concerned and as far as beef is concerned the share of the consumer’s dollar goes directly to the producer in a larger percentage than perhaps any other two commodities that I know of.

With regard to many other commodities that are on the basis of a negotiated price, the marketing boards having to do with processing fruit and vegetables are just beginning their discussion. They’ll continue for the next two or three months.

We will have someone present from the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Board who will be monitoring those discussions on a daily basis. On this board is the president of the Consumers’ Association of Canada, Ontario section. Those agreements will be finally resolved, I trust, by early spring.

But I believe people must recognize that if we are going to have the kind of increases in costs to the primary producer now evident, then prices at consumer level are going to have to reflect those increased costs or we are simply not going to have production.

My hon. friend can become quite excited about increased costs at consumer levels. None of us are really anxious to see that happen. But I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that unless those costs are reflected at producer level there is not going to be production -- and it is just as simple as that. I firmly believe that food is still the best buy we have in this country as far as consumers are concerned. I stand firmly by that position.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): It is also necessary.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Quite specifically, since we have had a year of rapidly increasing food costs and the Food Price Review Board predicts a further 16 per cent in the following year, would the minister not think it advisable on behalf of the people of this province to strengthen this review arm? It is presently there and capable of responding, but so far only on an ad hoc basis.

There should be capability in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food for a monitoring service upon which the minister can report on a regular basis during next year when the food prices are going to escalate even more rapidly than they have before. Does the minister not agree that this could be done without duplicating what is being done by Mrs. Plumptre’s committee, in the area where there is a provincial jurisdiction and where the price increases are going to have impact in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not share that opinion. I see no reason why the Province of Ontario --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I believe the minister will reverse that position before 1975 is over.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: We may, we may indeed. At this particular, precise moment in time I just feel that any such review board would simply be a duplication of what’s being done at the federal level.

There may be specific instances, where I will, as I did with beef, look into these things. But we have never found in any of these ad hoc looks that we may have taken that there is any undue profiteering. Certainly there are variations. There are variations between stores, and there are variations between commodities week to week and day by day. All one has to do is look at the ads. I reviewed the ads of all the major chain stores that appeared in the paper yesterday.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Are there any real bargains?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, there are some real bargains. Turkeys, for instance, are priced below cost of production; there isn’t any question about that.

Now what are we supposed to do? Are we to step into the market and say to the turkey producers and to the consumers: “You’ve got to increase the price of turkeys to come up to the cost of production”? There is no possible way turkey can be produced at the price it is selling for today in the chain stores of this province. Why doesn’t my hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition, stand up and say: “What are you going to do about turkey prices?” That’s the problem right now.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well, what is the minister going to do about turkey prices?

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister without Portfolio): Buy turkeys.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The hon. member for Wentworth with a supplementary.

Mr. Deans: It sounds like a turkey farm we are running.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Is the minister trying to split the Liberal caucus?

Mr. Deans: When the food council conducted its 42-week --

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I can’t hear the hon. member.

Mr. Deans: I don’t blame him, I can hardly hear either.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. We can’t hear the question.

An hon. member: Speak up.

Mr. Deans: I am having a little trouble this morning.

When the food council conducted its 42-week study or whatever number of weeks it was -- into the price of beef and it came to the conclusion there was no difference in the markup, was it talking about constant dollar difference or was it talking about a percentage difference? And when it came to the conclusion there was no difference in the markup over that period of time and yet recognized there was a rapidly escalating cost of beef at the retail level, did it then look beyond that markup to determine why the beef prices had risen as they did?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: No, Mr. Speaker, there has not been a rapidly increasing cost for beef at the retail level. That increase took place in 1973. This past fall until the last two weeks, live cattle and dressed beef by the carcass were selling at a higher price than in late 1973. The problem with my hon. friend is that he doesn’t realize that these feeder calf prices and the feeder cattle prices, which are not dressed beef prices at all, bear no reflection to them whatever, are far less than they were a year ago. The finished beef price up until two weeks ago is at a higher price today than it was in 1973.

But, strangely enough, the retail prices have maintained almost the same level as in 1973 when we had the consumer boycotts -- which resulted, incidentally, in the United States in a drop in per capita consumption of six pounds per person. That means two million less cattle were consumed in the USA.

Mr. Deans: They couldn’t afford it.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: This is the whole problem. All right, can the producer afford to produce it at the price that feed is today? They say that the consumer can’t afford it?

Mr. Deans: That’s exactly what I’m asking the minister.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Is the member suggesting -- and I interpret what he says as suggesting -- that the farmer should produce it at less than the cost of production?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Of course, that is what he always does!

Hon. Mr. Stewart: So the consumer can get it for less than cost of production.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Deans: I’m suggesting the price of beef went up and there was not study made to determine --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Deans: The whole thing is that the price of beef went up in 1973 and it did not come down to meet the level.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Deans: And there was no study made.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, a study was done, as I indicated.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, we have spent 10 minutes on this one question. I think that is sufficient. Does the Leader of the Opposition have further questions?

BRADLEY-GEORGETOWN HYDRO CORRIDOR

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Energy if he can explain to the House why he gave ministerial approval to the construction of the Bradley-Orangeville-Milton Hydro corridor -- it may be also called the Bradley-Georgetown corridor -- without releasing the environmental impact studies upon which the approval was to be predicated and without having the open hearings of the type that had been used in the Nanticoke-Pickering decision?

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Energy): Well, Mr. Speaker, this was thoroughly explained in a very lengthy statement on July 11. I think if the member would go back and read that he would find all the reasons.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have looked at it.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Very basically it was a question of timing. We regretted that the full public process could not be carried through. There were very extensive hearings on the northern route. The northern route, as much as anything I think, can be said was acceptable. The southern route was not acceptable. Ultimately, we ran out of time and, rather than have power locked up at Bruce, it became necessary to make a decision. The decision was made to proceed with the northern route and, for the time being, to forget the southern route and put it into the context of the long-range hearings which will probably be held next year. I think it was fully covered in the July 11 statement.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Can the minister explain why the environmental impact study is not now readily available? Would it not be possible to conduct the kind of hearing that would permit those people, who are now mounting a very legitimate action of complaint, to have an opportunity for an open hearing in this regard? Does it really mean that any further delay would imply that the power from the developing Bruce would simply be lost to the rest of the province? Are we at that point of inadequate planning?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, we are not at the point of inadequate planning at all.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Then why can’t we have a hearing about it?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Because we have run out of time. Bruce will be on stream and the first unit will be on stream.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s inadequate planning.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, it is not inadequate planning. The Leader of the Opposition should just go back and read some of these things, instead of coming blithering in here five months later --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I read that statement and it was a complete pull-back.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- and talking about things which --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The July 11 statement was a complete pull-back on the minister’s commitment that there would be a full hearing before the decision was made.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister completely reversed himself.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: All I can say is that it has taken the Leader of the Opposition five months to figure that out. If that’s his timetable, then he has got a little inadequate planning too.

An hon. member: Let him do his homework.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: All right, the citizens come in here -- a supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: All right, one supplementary then.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like the minister to explain to the House and those people who are concerned about it in the areas of Wellington county, particularly, and that have been in to see us and complaining that they are not getting adequate answers from the government, what is he going to do about having a hearing to satisfy their feelings that once again the great McKeough is imposing his will on a whole segment of the community?

Mr. Breithaupt: Right -- and that is saying something.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Probably he has done that more than any other minister over there.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, there have been numerous meetings. We have met with those people. The position of the government was laid out on July 11, and I am simply delighted that the Leader of the Opposition has come out of his long summer sleep and is waking up to some things that are going on in this province.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes, we know about the minister --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): A supplementary --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He says they blame him for everything. Well, they blame him for this one.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Huron-Bruce has the floor.

Mr. Gaunt: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Why hasn’t the minister considered, as an alternative, the Bruce-Essex line to supply Toronto with power from the Bruce plant, and shouldn’t this alternative have a great deal of appeal since Hydro already owns that particular right of way?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We now know who it is who has been talking with the opposition, but that’s fine; be that as it may --

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Isn’t that legitimate? They wanted to save the government another $100 million.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- the determination was made, and that was covered in the July 11 statement. I wish the official opposition would get into some of these things at an earlier stage instead of coming along as Johnny-come-latelies.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Why doesn’t the minister answer the question instead of stonewalling?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The question of the Essa corridor --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am really hurting the opposition this morning, am I not? I am really hurting them.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The Leader of the Opposition has wakened up and is publicly exposed to the fact that he is catching up with something.

Mr. Breithaupt: Is the minister going to punish the person who told us?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What is he going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: They really are something else over there.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I’d like to answer this question, Mr. Speaker, but I am being barracked by people over there.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The matter of the Essa corridor was gone into by Dr. Solandt, something over a year ago --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Take a national view.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Dr. Solandt determined that the correct crossing of the escarpment is in the Limehouse area and not the Essa corridor.

The other point that must be added is that as we build more power generation in the north -- and I think many people would agree that we should try to build as much of it in the north as we can -- it will be necessary to transport that power to southern Ontario, where the greatest load is --

Mr. Deacon: Why?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Why not try to use more of it up there?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- and the Essa corridor will be preserved for that use, wherever it can.

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: No, I think not. There is too much time being wasted on the supplementaries. We have to give some of the other people a chance to ask questions.

The Leader of the Opposition. A new question.

Interjections by hon. members.

NON-RETURNABLE CONTAINERS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’d like to ask the Minister of the Environment if he can justify his rather timid statement yesterday which once again shied away from even holding out hope that the policy of the government eventually is going to be to ban non-returnable containers. How does he square this with the statement made by his predecessor, now the Solicitor General (Mr. Kerr), which was foursquare for the acceptance of the policy that eventually throw-away cans and bottles would be banned and would be removed as a blight on our countryside?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, the statement I made yesterday outlined very clearly the policy of the ministry --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes, the very timid policy.

Hon. W. Newman: -- and I would just like to say that I have had many meetings --

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): That alone will cost the minister his seat.

Hon. W. Newman: Listen, the member is going to lose his, so he shouldn’t worry about me.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): No way.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. W. Newman: Is that all the members opposite do -- gamble? I am sorry to hear that.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): That’s not a gamble; it’s a sure thing.

Mr. Breithaupt: The voters are going to change one Newman for another.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I wonder if we could continue with the question period in its proper form. The minister is completing his answer.

Hon. W. Newman: Would the members like to hear my answer?

Mr. Ruston: No!

Hon. Mr. McKeough: They bombed twice over there this morning; now they are bombing again.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have had many meetings with the manufacturers of both bottles and cans, with the union people, with the glass people, with all those people who are involved --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. W. Newman: -- and certainly I am convinced that they are looking for direction, which they are going to be getting early in January when I will be meeting with them all. We will sit down at the table and discuss what directions we think they should be moving.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Would the minister not think that we should proceed by way of legislation rather than simply attempting to persuade the industry to follow some sort of a guideline that the minister has enunciated? Surely, as the authority in the province in this particular area, we ought to establish what we are going to do and then, by legislation, require the industry to conform. How can he expect to accomplish even this persuasive goal without a timetable that is significant?

Mr. Stokes: Why doesn’t he lead for a change?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, it is all very well to say “legislate it.” Sometimes I get a little tired of too much legislation. If it can be done without legislating it, why not do it that way?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He’s been Mickey Mousing around here all fall.

Hon. W. Newman: I also said, Mr. Speaker, I would be meeting with all the people concerned in the industry early in the year, and I did accept 14 of the 16 recommendations of the solid waste task force.

Mr. Shulman: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary and then we will move to the next questioner.

Mr. Shulman: Does the minister not think that instead of espousing the policy of the industry he should espouse the policy of the government and the people?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I said I was going to be doing early in the year.

Mr. Shulman: He is very slow.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sandwich-Riverside.

Mr. Stokes: Brace yourself.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Santa Claus has lost weight.

NOISE REGULATIONS

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of the Environment about noise pollution: When will he make available to Ontario municipalities his model noise bylaw --

An hon. member: Before the end of November.

Mr. Burr: -- which is all that is left of the years of noise legislation promises ever since the time of the present Solicitor General?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is editorializing.

Hon. Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I knew I shouldn’t have come in the House this morning. I do have two model noise bylaws.

Mr. Breithaupt: A and B.

Hon. W. Newman: I did have them ready by the end of November but I am not convinced that the Ontario Municipal Act has enough authority to really make them effective.

Mr. Haggerty: We told him so.

Hon. W. Newman: I am not sure that it has, so I have asked our legal people to draft this --

Mr. Good: Right back to square one.

Mr. Speaker: The minister is answering the question. Let’s have fewer interjections.

Hon. Mr. Newman: I have asked our legal staff to draw up an amendment to the Environment Protection Act, which they are working on right now, and I would hope that I would be able to bring that in in January when we come in. I have the model noise bylaws but I don’t think they would be that effective without the necessary backup legislation.

Mr. Good: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Waterloo North with a supplementary.

Mr. Good: Now that the minister has refused to proceed with regulations under the Environmental Protection Act to control noise and now that he says that his model noise bylaws are inadequate, that means the Province of Ontario is completely --

Mr. Speaker: Your question?

Mr. Good: -- without noise bylaws. Is that correct?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, as usual, the member is really all wet this morning. I wish he would get his facts straight.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Reid: My hearing is going.

Hon. W. Newman: Some municipalities have legislation by private bill, and we don’t want to destroy what they are doing. As I said, I had two model noise bylaws but I don’t want to get into the municipalities and say, “Here they are, go ahead and pass them” -- because that’s what they could do. I want to make sure there are enough teeth to back up those bylaws so they can do a more effective job.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sandwich-Riverside.

USE OF ASBESTOS IN PUBLIC PLACES

Mr. Burr: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of the Environment: When will the minister let me know whether asbestos is actually being used to control or counteract ice --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, with all the noise I didn’t hear that question.

Mr. Speaker: I had difficulty hearing it, too. Could we have less noise in the chamber, please?

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: ’Tis the season to be jolly.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside.

Mr. Burr: When will the minister let me know whether asbestos is actually being used to control or counteract ice on roads in Ontario, as he undertook to do during the estimates on Oct. 24?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I thought I pretty well answered all the questions that came up in estimates. If I have missed one, I am sorry. As far as using asbestos in the salt on the roads, I really think that question could be more directly put to the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Rhodes).

Mr. Stokes: Ask Dusty Rhodes there.

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL STANDARDS

Mr. Burr: I have another question of the Minister of the Environment: When is the minister introducing legislation to prevent air pollution -- especially asbestos air pollution -- during demolition of buildings, as he undertook to do on Oct. 24?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I believe if you check, we have already passed regulations controlling dust and things on demolition. I think the regulations have already been passed; I can’t tell you the exact date.

Mr. Burr: It must have been done very noiselessly.

Hon. W. Newman: Very noiselessly.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, he is opposed to noise.

ASBESTOS SPRAYING CONTROLS

Mr. Burr: Mr. Speaker, another question of the minister: When will he send me a report on the question of whether the spraying of asbestos is still allowed in Ontario, and if so, what precautions are taken to keep the asbestos dust out of the air in the vicinity -- as he undertook to do in the estimates of Oct. 24?

Hon. W. Newman: I believe, Mr. Speaker, there are certain controls that are necessary when spraying asbestos. Is the member talking about insulation? There are certain controls. As a matter of fact, I believe we just charged somebody the other day for not effectively keeping it under control when he was doing some spraying.

Mr. Burr: When am I going to get the answers that were promised to me?

Hon. W. Newman: I thought the member had most of his answers; but certainly --

Mr. Stokes: But the minister was wrong, obviously. Give him the answers.

Hon. W. Newman: We have nothing to hide in this ministry; we always give answers. We don’t have any secret reports or draft reports. We don’t hide anything here.

Mr. Ferrier: Why doesn’t the minister send him the answers, then?

Hon. W. Newman: If I’ve taken on an obligation to answer any questions, then he will certainly get some answers.

Mr. Breithaupt: In the fullness of time.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. A supplementary.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Supplementary: Can the minister give us more details about the case that he just mentioned? Where is the charge being laid; under what conditions and under what regulations?

Hon. W. Newman: I certainly can’t give details on it right now, because I didn’t have time to check it out this morning before I came to the House. But certainly I will get them.

Mr. Foulds: Doesn’t the minister know what is going on in his ministry?

Hon. W. Newman: I certainly do. A lot more than the member does; that’s for sure!

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Come on; the member doesn’t know what is going on in Thunder Bay.

Mr. Breithaupt: The minister sure knows how to hurt a fellow.

Mr. Shulman: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary, the hon. member for High Park.

Mr. Shulman: Will the minister agree that Dr. Selikoff is the outstanding expert on this problem involving this question of asbestos as a relation to human ills? And has the minister read the report made last week by Dr. Selikoff to the US Senate on this very problem, on which I’m sure he’s up to date?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, is the member asking me about the inhalation of asbestos or the ingestion of asbestos?

Mr. Shulman: The inhalation and the ingestion.

Hon. W. Newman: I have already covered the ingestion part, which comes under the Ministry of the Environment. If the member wants to talk about inhalation --

Mr. Ferrier: Did the minister read the book?

Hon. W. Newman: -- I guess that really comes under the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller), as far as I know. Is that right?

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, the question I asked the minister -- I guess he couldn’t hear because of the noise -- was: Has he read the report?

Hon. W. Newman: I have talked to my people, and they have read all these reports.

Mr. Foulds: Can the minister read?

Hon. W. Newman: I have read some of them myself. The member makes a joke about it. He is playing around with people’s lives. He gets people upset because he is not willing to listen to proper scientific data. I think it’s terrible what he does to the people of this province just to get himself in the headlines. I think it’s terrible!

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. It seems to me that this is developing into a debate. The hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside has further questions.

An hon. member: The member for High Park should sit down.

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, surely I am entitled --

An hon. member: Sit down.

Mr. Shulman: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Calm, gentlemen, calm; it’s Christmas.

Mr. Speaker: You may state your question of privilege.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): Can’t hear him. Can’t hear him.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Shulman: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the minister has accused me of playing with people’s lives. I wish to refute that. What I have done is reveal the facts. He is playing with the lives of the people of this province by concealing the facts; ignoring the facts -- and not releasing the data available to him.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. There seems to be a difference of opinion. I don’t think it’s a matter of personal privilege; it’s a difference of opinion. The hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside has a further question.

ASBESTOS IN DRINKING WATER

Mr. Burr: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Health about the possible harm from asbestos-contaminated drinking water:

Are there any plans to ask pathologists engaged in performing autopsies to look for accumulations of and possible damage from asbestos that has entered the body as the contaminant of drinking water?

Mr. Deans: Where’s the minister’s bow tie?

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I would think it’s almost presumptuous of me to need to tell trained pathologists what to look for in examining human bodies.

Mr. Burr: I said “ask.”

Hon. Mr. Miller: I would be quite happy to suggest they look for signs of any such troubles. But the fact that seems to have been lost in the discussions in the last few days, which have tended to become emotional, are these, that a study by international teams in 1972, convened in Lyons, France, did state they have no indication of gastrointestinal cancer due to asbestos in drinking water.

Intensive tests in laboratories, giving animals water containing large quantities of asbestos, have proven no indication of it being a carcinogen. Statistical analyses of the frequency of gastro-intestinal cancer in Duluth, Minn., which I believe is the city with the highest level of water containing asbestos in North America, run in parallel with a neighbouring city that did not have the problem --

Mr. Shulman: No, wrong.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I don’t know that it is wrong, I am only told that it is right. That makes the difference between us. I at least will be willing to go back and consider that maybe it is wrong, that is always a possibility with data that comes from scientists. The Duluth analysis showed no correlated difference in those two factors.

Mr. Shulman: I will give the minister the paper immediately.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Thirdly, in the Province of Ontario, in the last 30 years, the occurrence of gastro-intestinal cancer has dropped in males by roughly 25 per cent.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions.

Mr. Burr: As a supplementary, is the minister aware I put this identical question on the order paper in the spring of 1972?

The answer that came on June 20 from the then Minister of the Environment, probably through the Minister of Health’s department, said:

“Pending the results of experiments on animals, pathologists engaged in performing autopsies are not yet being asked to search more diligently than they are already doing for accumulation of and possible damage caused by asbestos that has entered the body via the drinking water.”

I asked the minister whether he would ask pathologists to do it; not tell them, just ask them.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I said it is presumptuous of me, because I hoped that pathologists would do it. Let me say this: I have a great scepticism of any statement that says categorically there is no problem, or categorically there is a problem, until we are more sure of our facts. I would be glad to see us keeping an open stance in any investigations at any level, to determine whether the risk is real or not. If this involves a voluntary request to pathologists to keep their eyes open, certainly I would endorse it.

Mr. Burr: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

NATURAL GAS FLARES

Mr. Burr: I have a question of the Minister of Energy about the natural gas which has flared or burned in the open air at producing oil fields. Does the minister know how much natural gas is wasted in Canada annually in this way?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, but I would suspect the amount is very small.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: He has it all written out.

Mr. Breithaupt: Everybody else was at the party last night

Mr. Burr: Supplementary: Inasmuch as the United States Department of Commerce in a recent press release --

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Is this a question now, or another rebuttal?

Mr. Burr: This is a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: The last one wasn’t.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Extraneous supplementary.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): He has the right to ask a new question if he wants to.

Mr. Burr: Well, you can call it a new question, but it is related to this answer, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Let me point out, please, that these question periods are getting a little off course. The last supplementary was really a rebuttal of the minister’s statement, and really this is not the time for debate. If you have a supplementary question, fine.

Mr. Burr: Mr. Speaker, just a point of order, I asked the Minister of Energy a question. He said the answer was “very little.” Now I am asking him a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: What you had started to say didn’t appear supplementary. That’s why I ask is it a supplementary or another rebuttal?

Mr. Burr: Yes, it is a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Now we are wasting time.

Mr. Burr: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I wouldn’t dream of asking anything else.

Mr. Foulds: The two are not mutually exclusive, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Burr: Inasmuch as the United States Department of Commerce in a recent press release, said that three per cent of the world’s energy production is being wasted in this way, would the minister make some representations to prevent this destruction of our irreplaceable, unrenewable source of energy?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, the member asked about Canada and I said I thought the answer would be very little. What the member is asking on a supplementary, apparently concerns the world. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was higher than three per cent of the world’s energy. There is a great deal of gas in the Middle East, where it is not economic and where what is wanted out of the ground is the oil, and there is no economic use, as yet, for great quantities of that gas. A day may come when LNGs are economic, but they do not appear to be at this moment in time.

Mr. Burr: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary: The economics of the matter are not involved. With an unrenewable resource, if we are going to waste the energy --

Mr. Breithaupt: Wearing them down.

Mr. Speaker: Order; order please. That’s not a supplementary question, as I was pointing out to the member before.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I would have to answer that supplementary and say it does not surprise me that a member of that party thinks the economics are unimportant.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. May I point out that the two leadoff questioners have taken an undue length of time this morning and there are many other people who want to ask questions?

Hon. Mr. Davis: They certainly have.

Mr. Speaker: I think we will move on to the next question. The Minister of Labour has an answer to a question.

FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY STUDY

Hon. J. P. MacBeth: (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I believe I have located the study which the member for Scarborough West referred to on Dec. 16. It was prepared by the legislative research branch of Labour Canada, is entitled: “Wage Protection: Collection of Wages; Priority of the Wage Claim; Securing the Wage Claim,” and was circulated for comment and criticism in the summer of 1973.

The director of the employment services division has held meetings with representatives from the UIC, the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the federal Ministry of Labour to discuss the possibility of changes to the Bankruptcy Act, as well as the possibility of an insurance scheme that would guarantee workers’ wages. The latest information is that the UIC expects to be able to release the results of its study shortly.

The report is rather a voluminous one. I have one copy which is available for anyone wishing to review it. Of course, when recommendations arise from this working paper, these will be brought to the attention of the House.

The member for Scarborough West is not here but I’ll see that he gets this, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Huron.

LOCATION OF HYDRO STATIONS

Mr. Riddell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was wondering if the Minister of Energy could tell me whether Ontario Hydro has purchased land in the Varna area, south of Goderich, for the construction of a generating station? Is Ontario Hydro not violating its own principle by establishing generating stations so far removed from the major load centres?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The answer to the first question is, to my knowledge, no.

Mr. Gaunt: What about the second one?

Mr. Deacon: What about the second one?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It’s hypothetical.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Did the member for York Centre hear the question?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury.

SUNDAY TRUCKING OPERATIONS

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Now that the federal appeals court has ruled against his application to overturn the decision of the CTC to allow Sunday trucking, when is he going to back up his brave words with some legislation to contain Sunday trucking in Ontario?

Mr. Foulds: That’s a good question.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I think I’ve said very clearly that I intend to go ahead and prepare the necessary legislation to back up what we have said. I think the words aren’t necessarily brave. They were simply a statement of the fact that we did not want the trucks on the highways on Sundays and we’ll get the necessary legislation to control it in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Stokes: When?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: If the CTC cannot see the importance of what we are trying to do here, then we’ll have to go about it in our own way in our own province. But I do want to point out that we have been having a great deal of co-operation from the trucking industry as well. They want to cooperate with us to get trucks off the highways on Sundays.

Mr. Speaker: The Solicitor General has an answer to a question.

REVOLUTIONARY PAMPHLETS

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): Mr. Speaker, on Dec. 3 the Leader of the Opposition asked whether or not there was any control over the importation of the sort of printed material seized from a juvenile in Orillia who had been experimenting with explosives. Any control over the importation of this sort of material comes under the Customs Tariff Act, a federal statute which has appended to it several schedules, one of which outlines goods prohibited from import.

Among the articles seized during the investigation was a catalogue from an American publishing house located in Ohio that deals extensively in books and materials on weaponry, guerilla tactics, bombs and incendiary devices. Most of the material seized or surrendered during the investigation in Orillia are listed in this catalogue. One of the titles advertised is prohibited under the Customs Tariff Act.

All the printed material seized was printed or published in the United States. I’m informed, Mr. Speaker, that the titles of the publications surrendered and seized have been forwarded to the security services of the RCMP here for review and to see if further action is warranted.

As a result of the Orillia police department’s investigation, four charges have been laid against juveniles for possession of explosives without lawful excuse under the Criminal Code. Another person near Orillia has also been charged with improper storage and security of explosives under the Explosives Act. More recently, eight charges have been laid against five juveniles arising out of incidents involving smoke bombs, also in Orillia.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Welland South.

NON-PAYMENT OF EMPLOYEES

Mr. Haggerty: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I’d like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. What steps, if any, has his ministry taken to stop the fraudulent practice carried on in Ontario by a group for a syndicate operator, whose business originates in United States and who has been operating a business in Ontario called, “FigurMagic, Today’s Woman” and now called “Body Magic,” who through unscrupulous operations have failed to provide wages for employees?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, the member sent me a copy of the question and I appreciate him doing so. I also have a telegram from the union in Port Colborne, the United Steelworkers of America, raising the same question.

My ministry is well aware of this problem, as is the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Affairs. We’ve done our best to try and get after these people, but they hide behind the corporate veil and there is very little we have been able to do to date. However, I would like to draw the member’s attention to

section 60(1) of the Employment Standards Act which is awaiting third reading of this House. That is the instrument we hope to be able to use to pursue the employers rather than the company itself; that is we can now get after the individual person as opposed to the company. It is

section 60(1) that I refer the member to. With that added weapon in our arsenal, I think we will be successful.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Nickel Belt.

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO ACT

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Colleges and Universities. In view of the fact that the University of Toronto Act requires that it be brought before this chamber by July 1, 1974, when does the minister intend to do that?

Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Colleges and Universities): Mr. Speaker, my recollection of the Act says the report of the committee was to be submitted to the minister by July or sometime last summer, and that the minister then will place it before the Lieutenant Governor in Council and decide what to do with it.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, supplementary question: When does the minister intend to do that?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, as soon as I’ve gone through the rest of the process. As a matter of fact, in five minutes I’m meeting some of the student federation about it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Rainy River.

REPORT OF DOG FOOD FED TO CHILDREN

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I was almost worn out getting up here.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health relating to the Metro Family Service Association report on families feeding their children dog food -- a sad commentary on our society, I would think. In view of the fact there is probably no immediate remedy for this, will the minister at the very least make a statement concerning the ill effect and the danger to health of people eating this kind of food?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I want to get some facts before I make any statements, either to reassure or to confirm that a state of affairs like that does exist.

Mr. Reid: Even if one person does it, can’t the minister say that it is a hazard to health?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I would like to know that for sure before I make that statement.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Port Arthur.

THUNDER BAY STUDY

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Treasurer. Is the final version of the phase 1 study for the Thunder Bay industrial complex commissioned by his ministry with the consultants, Proctor, Redfern and C. D. Howe Engineering finalized yet? Is he willing to make the copies available to the people in the area?

Hon. J. White (Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Apparently not, because I haven’t seen it. I’ll have to get a report for the member.

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

BRADLEY-GEORGETOWN HYDRO CORRIDOR

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker I have a question of the Minister of Energy. When did the minister say he was going to release the environmental impact study with respect to the Bradley-Orangeville-Milton Hydro corridor?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I’m not releasing it; Ontario Hydro is. I thought it had been released now. I think there are two versions, a big one and a smaller one, in many colours. If it hasn’t been released, it’s to be released any day. I think it’s simply a question of getting enough copies, and I believe they are sending out something like 2,000.

Mr. Breithaupt: There is no holdup?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: There is no holdup as far as I know. I thought it had gone, but if it hasn’t it will be any day now. I’ll find out.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, before we go any further, may I just interrupt the proceedings of the House very briefly to comment upon the amendments to the Legislative Assembly Act, which will be called very shortly and which I assume will receive everybody’s endorsation? It just came to mind that it deals with the position of the Clerk of the House.

It will be 20 years ago, on Jan. 1, that the present Clerk of the House was appointed to that position and also as chief electoral officer. I would just like to say to him, on behalf of all of us, on what is very close to the 20th anniversary, just how much we all appreciate the task that he has done -- the quiet advice that from time to time, Mr. Speaker, he passes on to you, sir; and of course his many other responsibilities.

I shouldn’t divulge this, of course, but it’s a matter of public record that when the present Clerk was appointed in 1955 there was, for the combined responsibilities, a salary of $5,700 per annum.

Mr. Breithaupt: It should be at least $6,000 now.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I just want to join with the Premier in offering our best wishes and congratulations to the Clerk. I can recall sitting up there somewhere as a boy and seeing his father in the same chair, and perhaps meeting him at that time as well.

It has also been suggested that if there is somebody in this province who would appreciate an anti-noise law it’s probably the gentleman right here.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I just want to add the congratulations of the New Democratic Party to the Clerk. We occasionally disagree, but we recognize the tremendous service he has put forth on behalf of the Province of Ontario and on behalf of the members of the Legislature. I congratulate him.

Mr. Breithaupt: I think his salary should go to $6,000.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That is inflationary. The member is starting to sound like his colleague in Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker: The Board of Internal Economy may look after that.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. White presented the report of the Ontario Education Capital Aid Corp. for the year ended March 31, 1974, and the Ontario Municipal Improvement Corp. for the same period.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that when the House adjourns today it stand adjourned until a date to be named by the Lieutenant Governor by her proclamation.

Mr. Speaker: Shall this motion carry?

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, before the motion is put, I think it is certainly of interest to the members to follow through on the earlier comments by the Premier that we would expect to be returning in January. Is it not possible at this time to advise us as to whether it will be likely in the second or third week? Presumably a session might go for two or three weeks or perhaps even longer, but surely it would be a great convenience to the members if we had some idea as to the likely starting date.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to give the hon. members as much information on this as I can. It would be my hope that the House would not reconvene for the first two weeks of January, in any event, so that those members who are planning work in their constituencies and other matters of urgent public importance can have that sort of guidance. I can’t guarantee that, of course, but I would think we would be relatively safe in assuming it would not be the first two weeks in January.

While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, just in case some have other important commitments before the House does adjourn later on today, I recognize we have very heated discussions here from time to time and, Mr. Speaker, a shade noisy, as was observed earlier. In spite of that, I would say that we do accomplish a great deal during the discussions in this House.

We on the government side, are always appreciative of the constructive criticisms emanating from the opposition -- I have to say that sometimes they aren’t totally constructive. But I would like to take this opportunity to -- and I regret the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) is not here because I wanted to extend very personally to all members of the House the very best wishes for a joyeux Noel; or for those members who aren’t familiar with that, in another basic language of this country now, buon Natale --

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): What is that, Yiddish?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Happy Chanukah.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Provincial Secretary for Resources Development will add his greetings in Hebrew or Yiddish, but a very merry Christmas to all of you.

Mr. Speaker: Shall Mr. Winkler’s motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS ACT

Mr. Bounsall moves first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act 1974.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Mr. Speaker, this bill proposes the postponement of polling day for municipal elections by one week in the case of emergencies, such as arose in the Windsor-Essex county area on the last municipal polling day, after notifying the minister concerned.

It also shifts polling day to the first Sunday in November with the council to take office Dec. 1; and allows council to initiate an official inquiry before a county or district court judge into election practices, rather than the present situation where a writ must be issued, often by a private person.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: His colleague from Cochrane South is going to vote against him.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading upon motion:

Bill 72, the Education Act, 1974.

Bill 113,

An Act to amend the Municipal Affairs Act.

Bill 134, the Employment Standards Act, 1974.

Clerk of the House: The 12th order, resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 170,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ACT (CONCLUDED)

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Mr. Speaker, I believe I adjourned the debate on this bill last week.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): I have just one point to raise, if I might.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, will the member defer to the member for Kitchener?

Mr. Laughren: Yes.

Mr. Breithaupt: The bill is now reprinted and I presume that our comments and our remarks are to be taken on the assumption that the bill, as reprinted, is the one with which we are to deal.

Mr. Speaker: Is that understood? Agreed? Agreed.

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): Mr. Speaker, since the last debate we had on this bill, I have given consideration to many of the suggestions made by the hon. members. The bill has been reprinted, including these revisions, and when we go into committee I will be moving the amendments that are included in the reprinted bill.

Mr. Speaker: Is this agreed by the assembly?

Agreed.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I think we can take the amendments in the bill as reprinted without them having to be separately moved.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, that’s the motion I will be making, that the bill as reprinted be considered in committee, but I also remember certain instances in this House when that was not acceptable, so I have all the individual revisions ready if the hon. members want them moved separately.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Laughren: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I should commend the minister for bringing in those amendments. I think that they are a move in the right direction, and I am pleased that he listened to the opposition and changed the bill.

I just want to conclude very quickly my remarks dealing with the whole question of constituency offices for provincial members. I think the presence of federal constituency offices across the whole country is proving a point, that it allows elected members to be closer to their constituents and to better serve their constituents.

I believe that if a member of this chamber does not wish to have a constituency office, that’s fine; let him go his own merry way. But there are those of us who come from a long way from Toronto, who in some cases represent very large and spread-out ridings, and it would be a tremendous asset to the people in our ridings if there were constituency offices funded by the Province of Ontario.

It’s not as though all ridings were the same. I have felt for some time that there are certain ridings in the province which are more difficult to serve than others. Now I know it’s very difficult not to be parochial in a discussion like this, but I would suspect that the three elected members from the Sudbury basin, for example, have an unduly heavy constituency case load because of the nature of the work force in the Sudbury area. Obviously, we have a mining community and there are a great many problems in the community in terms of workmen’s compensation, for example.

I dare say that all three of us could work full time solely on workmen’s compensation problems without dealing with the business of this House at all. Of course, that’s a sad commentary on the delivery of service to the people.

I suspect, too, that in a community such as that, and in other northern communities, people will turn more readily to their member than those in southern Ontario. I suspect as well that constituents of Don Mills, York South or York North, for example, don’t have the kind of problems experienced by constituents in the more northern, more remote communities. That in itself is one reason that I think there should be constituency offices for members who would like to have them, and I don’t think they would be an undue expense or drain on the public purse.

I think that all the people in Ontario would be better served if there were constituency offices. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to speak to this bill?

The member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I realize that pursuant to rule 20 of the rules of this House I would not be able to vote on this bill, but I trust I will be able at least to make a few comments with respect to some of the changes which are now being brought forward to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

It was of interest to receive this bill originally and to find that there were a number of things proposed, especially with respect to the Office of the Assembly itself. As the minister has announced, he has now accepted in a reprinted version of this bill a number of substantial amendments with which we agree. In conversations with various members of the staff who were affected by these amendments, we found that the points which they had to raise were logical and were worthy of support, and I am pleased to see that the minister has accepted the comments which have been suggested as amendments to the bill.

Certainly in the first section, the changes which set out the more clear procedure of electing a deputy Speaker and resolving various problems which could arise, are worthy of support and appear to be in order. As I had mentioned, with respect to

section 68 of this proposed bill, I, of course, will have no comments and no opinion on that particular matter.

Section 69 dealt with the matters raised concerning the provision of the unconditional grant moneys which have been set at $5,000 per member. This point was substantially debated in the supplementary estimates which have now been passed by the House. Comments were made at that time with respect to removing from that allocation the members of the executive council. Since that matter has been debated and dealt with, I will certainly not proceed to review the reasons we had for that position. However, I still think the points were validly made and perhaps some day that matter may be changed.

In the latter part of

section 69, there are proposals now that the amounts would be as appropriated by the Legislature, rather than the 20 per cent figure which was used earlier on. I think that this is a good change because, while the percentage might change from time to time, based upon the needs of the opposition and based upon the numbers involved, that surely can be done by the Legislature without the necessity of having to amend the Act and deal with a particular percentage that would have been enshrined in the legislation.

With respect to

section 3 of this bill that deals with

section 71 and others, concerning the Office of the Assembly, we noted originally that there was apparently some confusion between the legislative assembly as such and the Office of the Assembly. We think that confusion has been substantially resolved by the proposed amendments, and we think that this reprinted bill is the better for it.

Historically, as you are aware, Mr. Speaker, there are two officers of the assembly, namely, the Clerk and the Provincial Auditor. While the auditor has had various protections, pursuant to

section 2 of the Audit Act, in order that that office be able to have removal only under an address of the assembly and a continuation during good behaviour, that had not been the situation with respect, at least formally, to the office of the Clerk in this Legislature. Those statutory provisions which benefited the independence of the auditor as a servant of this assembly are now to be included in the proposed amendment in

section 72. We think that that is exactly what should happen.

As originally proposed in

section 72, the various appointments were set out of Clerk, First Clerk Assistant, Sergeant-at-Arms and director of administration. These were to hold office, in effect, during the Speaker’s pleasure. I think that it is wise to separate the positions and now to give the Clerk the fullest protection of the terms of this distinguished office, which I must say is graced by its present incumbent. The terms which are set out as proposed in the amendments are most satisfactory.

Surely, this office should be filled, clearly during the good behaviour of the incumbent person, and also the removal of that person should be not on any capricious basis, but rather on the address to the assembly, if such a most serious step should ever be necessary, and one done, obviously, with great and serious reason.

section 74 in this amendment, we originally would have had the director of administration prepare the estimates. We thought at the time that this was not the satisfactory way in which to handle this because, obviously, it is Mr. Speaker’s responsibility to prepare the estimates, although the mechanics of that might well be done by some other person. It is quite clear in the reorganization of this office that the director of administration would likely have the mechanical work to do through the members of his or her staff and that this task would come under the direct control of the director of administration, although the responsibility is obviously still that of the Speaker.

section 80, as set out here, the comments earlier from the member for Sandwich-Riverside (Mr. Burr) had perhaps led some of us to consider applying for advances in order that we could make some money by putting those funds out at interest, but I suggest that that is probably not going to be open to members of the assembly. The whole idea, obviously, was for the convenience of those staff persons, particularly on select or standing committees, who might have to have some expense funds -- which, of course, would be entirely accountable in advance.

Now that it has been changed to a committee of the assembly, it includes obviously both select and standing committees. That is a good thing to have so that should the occasion arise, where fully accountable advances would be required, this could be attended to on the authority, and I am sure under the close and personal scrutiny of Mr. Speaker.

Section 82, of course, is the one which creates the Board of Internal Economy, and that comes of great interest to all members of the assembly.

I understand that in the federal House of Commons the procedure was to appoint certain members of the Privy Council and the question arose when the hon. Marcel Lambert sought appointment, since he was a member of the Privy Council. But, of course, he was as well a distinguished member of the official opposition in the House of Commons. From that point I think has developed the view, especially in this proposed amendment, that there should be input from the opposition parties in the formality of running the Office of the Assembly and in controlling the various financial and sessional requirements of the legislative assembly.

I am certainly pleased that the commissioners who are going to be appointed, obviously have to have the confidence and the belief from the members of their own caucuses that they will be able to carry out these particular tasks which are going to be required of them. There must, of course, be a government majority, and this has been attended to very nicely. On the other hand, there must be representation from the two opposition parties, and this, too, is proposed.

There is the interesting subsection here which would allow appointment, really, from any party other than that of the official opposition. Now, as you are aware, Mr. Speaker, we have had the view, at least in the other financial Acts with which we have dealt, that third party representation was based on the requirement of having 12 members in that third party.

I don’t know why this hasn’t been spelled out in this section, as it might prove at some point in the future to be awkward if a splinter group of two or three or, indeed, perhaps an independent member, should demand membership on the Board of Internal Economy because of the way subsection c, sub iii, reads.

If a two-member splinter party formed a caucus and wished to appoint a person to this Board of Internal Economy, you might be bringing yourself in for some problem in the future, Mr. Speaker. This may not be the case; I may have read too much into this situation. But I would have thought that the 12-member term that we have used in the past might be here. It may be that the minister has an answer to this point and that I may be in error, but I raise it and perhaps it can be discussed.

Under

section 84(

f) I would draw the attention of the House to the powers which the Board of Internal Economy will have in that subsection. It seems to me that this board is going to be dealing more with financial matters. I wonder if really the board should be in the position to, as subsection f says, and I quote:

“To advise upon and give directions in relation to any matter the board considers necessary for the efficient and effective operation of the Office of the Assembly.”

I would have thought that the word “financial” might go into that between the words “any” and “matter,” so that the Board of Internal Economy is not presuming to deal with certain matters that it is not the intention that the executive council might have to give to that board.

Again, it’s a suggestion which I think might be an improvement, because certainly the work which this board is going to be doing will be to deal particularly with the financial aspects of the operation of this assembly, as all-inclusive as those may be.

section 89, Mr. Speaker, there have been certain representations brought forward and certain concerns, particularly by the staff members, as to how grievance and other disciplinary matters might be handled.

In the original proposed Bill 170, there were certainly some loopholes, and I understand there was some unhappiness with the procedure as had been explained there. We have now seen substantial amendments and I commend the minister for accepting those amendments as set out in

section 89 and the sections immediately thereafter.

It certainly appeared to us that the Speaker was not the person who should sit in this particular position but that this, in fact, was the responsibility of the Clerk in order to deal with the initiation of any inquiry, if such a thing should unfortunately be necessary. The Clerk should be, and is certainly, in a good position to deal with the administrative matters and this would avoid any hasty, perhaps political, reaction that could occur in a disciplinary matter and which might prove to be unfortunate for all of us.

The matter of having appeals through the usual procedure of the public service grievance board again builds in an independent factor and a proper procedural safeguard to make sure that any of the matters complained of through the inquiry which the Clerk might initiate would be dealt with in an unbiased and completely proper manner. I appreciate very much that this term has been put in, to have the public service grievance board procedures to be available to the various members of the staff, and I think that should the unfortunate occasion arise where

section 89 would be used, at least the end result would be after a full and proper hearing.

Section 91 does rather bother me, and I raise a point which I think might be of use to the Minister of Government Services. It would appear that the members of the public service who have agreed to accept appointment and employment in the Office of the Assembly are going to be put to this decision immediately upon the day that this Act comes into force. It would appear, therefore, that these persons have no option as to whether, in fact, they may wish to consider this matter.

I’m going to suggest, Mr. Speaker, when we get to

section 5 of the bill and deal with the matter of when this bill comes into force, that there could well be an amendment to allow

section 91 to come into force on a date to be proclaimed by the Lieutenant Governor. This might be a more pleasant and a more relaxed way of allowing this particular decision to be made by members of the staff if they so wish to do and will give them time to exercise the option that is put forward, perhaps in a month’s time, or whatever. I commend that idea to the minister, because I think that it would be a way of dealing with any personal matters in a good form should they come up.

Section 93 deals with the building and its control by the Office of the Speaker. There are, of course, those of us who feel that this entire building should be the prerogative of Mr. Speaker, and others should be here as may be required, but with the long-term view that the building will be solely for the operation of the legislative assembly. As we proceed hopefully to that goal, and as other space is available into which proper facilities may be developed, if that should be the occasion, we obviously have to know which parts of the building are going to be under Mr. Speaker’s control.

I feel that the definition of the areas which are to be under Mr. Speaker’s control should be well known, not only to the members of the assembly but to those of the press and the public who might be involved in the operation of this organization. The fact of the order in council being laid before the assembly with a clear record of the precincts of the building which are under Mr. Speaker’s control is, I think, a good idea.

The matter of security is something in which we certainly have seen great improvements over the past year or so. The government protective staff that is now available to us in this building, I think, from my observations of it, has proven to be well organized and I think is doing a most acceptable job.

It is a pleasure to see the two young ladies who have been appointed to the staff. I think this is a good idea, and certainly it is a requirement where the public is being involved.

Perhaps it’s only my military background that occasionally shows through, but I think that seeing the members of this staff nicely uniformed and well turned out is a commendable thing. I feel that they provide a good touch of discipline and their bearing has been most commendable. This is an improvement over the system in the past and I commend the changes that have been made and the good taste that I think has been shown in that situation.

I realize that the personnel who are enforcing security are on a rotational basis, as I understand it, and have responsibilities in other buildings and, I think, at Osgoode Hall as well. I would suggest that at least certain persons who are on the staff within this building should remain on duty here rather than being seconded to other buildings, so that they will have a greater familiarity with the members and perhaps with the mechanics of the operations of the Legislature than might otherwise be the case if all the members of the staff were being rotated through a series of responsibilities.

This might be a way of building a slightly better familiarity with the operation of the Legislature in the useful approach which could be taken by these members of the protective services as they get a sort of feel for the operation of this place. It is surely not like the real world on many days. I would think that some continuous exposure within the chamber, while it might be a strain at times on their patience, might at least be of benefit to the members.

Mr. Speaker, those are really all the remarks I had. As I said, I would commend an amendment to

section 5 for the minister’s consideration. I would not take it to committee solely for that purpose, but I think that

section 5(1), could read: “This Act, except sections 2 and 91, comes into force on the day it receives royal assent.”

Subsection 2 could remain as it is and a new subsection 3 could usefully say; “Section 91 shall be deemed to come into force on a date to be proclaimed by the Lieutenant Governor.”

I think if the minister does that he will resolve any particular problems in the options which he is putting to the assembly staff under

section 91. It would be a useful way of resolving a problem before it perhaps comes up. If it is not taken advantage of by any of the happy crew that are involved in this organization, then so much the better. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I would just state that if anyone was worried about the member’s suggestion at the beginning of his remarks that

section 20 might apply, I’m sure he meant it in a jocular fashion. It does not apply.

The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to make one or two comments about the bill. Really the point has been raised in various ways by different members about the problems of disparities of resources between both the two sides of the House and perhaps also between different members in the House. This is one of the most difficult problems, Mr. Speaker, that you and your staff have to try to determine or that we as a Legislature have got to determine.

How do you provide resources to one member who simply has to appear in his riding once every year and does nothing around here either and yet is guaranteed election from now until doomsday, and another member who, because he is either driven and harried by a tiny majority or because of natural inclination or talent, is exceptionally busy and very much involved in the process of being a member and all that that entails?

There is no easy answer to it, but I think that the point at least needs to be raised. In a general way, I think that the problem of disparity of resources between the opposition parties and the government has still not really been accommodated by the various measures that have been taken in the wake of the two Camp commission reports.

Perhaps I can just recall -- the Minister of Justice (Mr. Welch) isn’t here today -- that the other week there came up in the House some amendments to the Judicature Act that affected the rights of the press to take photographs in or around courtrooms. As so often happens, Mr.

Speaker, with the amount of legislation that comes through this place and with the very limited amount of support staff that we have to do research for the Legislature, the bill came forward and certain points were made by our side and then other points were made, in that case by myself as a former journalist, but scrambling, trying to get the kind of picture straight. So often one doesn’t have time to sit and give a bill half a day of thought and come forward with cogent and coherent kind of arguments and put the case in an elegant fashion.

The minister got up in reply -- and in fact did reply in a very elegant fashion -- and we had an interesting debate on the points of principle in that particular bill. But what struck me in the minister’s reply was, I realized, that he was replying from notes that had been prepared for him by a member of his staff who had been able to think through the various issues of principle which might be raised during the course of the debate. The minister used metaphor and allusion and strophe and all sorts of rhetorical devices in putting forward very ably the argument for his point of view.

The minister is capable of making a good argument -- I don’t deny him that -- but it certainly helped a lot that a busy member of this Legislature had the support of somebody in his staff who could anticipate the kinds of things that would be stated and was then able to put together the rebuttal in form that the minister could use.

This happens all the time, Mr. Speaker, whether it’s the Liberal caucus of 20-odd or whether it’s the NDP caucus of 20 members.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Twenty odd members.

Mr. Cassidy: They are 20 odd members. We are just 20.

Mr. Deans: They are odd members. We are just 20.

Mr. A. Carruthers (Durham): I would say the members opposite are all odd.

Mr. Cassidy: Each of the opposition parties in its work in the Legislature carries as much of a load as the government, but carries it with far fewer resources. We have five researchers. The Liberals have five or six or seven. Any one of the ministers of the Crown who brings forward a bill in this House, Mr. Speaker, has the benefit of the equivalent of at least five or six people who know the area intimately and are capable of doing the kind of work that our researchers can do when they have the time to devote to it.

And not only that; there is of course a tremendous amount of preparation md consideration and so on of the pitfalls that go into bill or are said to go into bills before they come to this place.

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that one of the problems with the resources given to the various caucuses is simply this, that the government-side back-benchers don’t basically participate in debates, although they may do a certain amount within their caucus. The legislative responsibilities that they have tend to be those of attendance and not much more and, judging by the dozen or so who are here for this particular debate, they don’t take those responsibilities too seriously.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): All the time. That is the problem.

Mr. Cassidy: The ministers obviously have other responsibilities, but they also have very substantial support staffs in order to help them in their particular jobs. The burden of the debate in this Legislature is carried by the New Democratic Party and, to a lesser extent, by the Liberals. Without being partisan, it is being carried by the opposition parties.

Mr. Carruthers: Like the member for Ottawa Centre.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): The burden is on us having to listen.

Mr. Deans: The difficulty is having to use words small enough so that the Tories will understand them.

Mr. Cassidy: I think at times it’s a bit distressing, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to make a serious argument here; this is not intended to be particularly partisan. There is a serious problem here that relates to the Legislature as a whole. Members of our party, if I want to talk in specific terms, have responsibilities to get re-elected; they have responsibilities to their local riding association; they may have some obligations to their party; they have responsibilities to their families, who all suffer because of the work we do as members and the degree of absences that we suffer.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): If he can’t stand the heat in the kitchen, he’d better get out.

Mr. Cassidy: Fair enough, okay.

Mr. N. G. Leluk (Humber): He’d better leave.

Mr. Cassidy: They have responsibilities to constituents in case work, they have responsibilities outside, in terms of responding to letters and so on, and what happens is that the Legislature has a tendency to come last on the list, rather than near the front. With the kind of support staff that members have, many of those things that we do outside that might be done by other people are either done by the members themselves or else the members have to engage themselves, and their energy and time and effort, in ensuring that those things are done.

In my particular case, among the other ways that I occupy my time, every couple of Saturdays I go out in my car for a couple of hours along with 20 other members of my riding association to deliver a community newspaper. We do that in order to raise the funds for a $10,000-a-year constituency office, and without that constituency office, Mr. Speaker, I would be helpless to do what I can do, in legislative terms or any other terms of the job that I have to do.

Mr. Haggerty: Where is that? In Toronto Island?

Mr. Cassidy: But those funds have got to be raised. The pressure is always there, and the Legislature suffers, I would suggest, in many cases.

The members of this Legislature ought, above all, to be concerning themselves with what goes on here; to be concerning themselves with informing themselves in those areas of legislation and policy that are of particular interest. But I have to ask you, Mr.

Speaker, how many members in the opposition have been able to go off, let’s say, for even a week, let alone two or three weeks in the past year, to go to Quebec, or to go to British Columbia, or to Washington, or maybe even to Britain, or some other jurisdiction in order to see how people in another jurisdiction comparable to Ontario’s solve the very difficult problems of government in these days? The Treasurer (Mr. White) went to Yugoslavia a year or so ago to see their patterns of municipal government, and I am sure that was a stimulating trip for him.

As far as ministers are concerned, even they don’t get that kind of input very often. How many members of this Legislature find the time to do serious reading, on a sustained basis, on the areas in which we are spokesman, or critics, or parliamentary assistants or whatever? Again, not nearly enough for the health of this body, which is the major policymaking body of the government of Ontario -- or at least is intended to be.

In the case of the opposition, Mr. Speaker, I can’t guarantee that given more support, we would suddenly turn into paragons, and obviously, given more support, not all of our efforts would go into policy-making in legislation. We might try to do a bit more for our party, because we are partisan people. We might try to spend a bit more time with our families, which isn’t such a bad idea either. But, nevertheless, we are labouring with very small resources.

The pattern in other jurisdictions has been pretty inexorably to say that if legislators are going to do a good job they have to have more support than people are getting right now. That particularly applies to the obligations on members of the opposition parties who have to respond and try to cover off an entire ministry that may cover the province, may have thousands of employees and may spend billions of dollars. We get the member for Sudbury (Mr. Germa), with his secretary and the help of a fifth of a researcher or half of a researcher, covering off Transportation and Communications.

We get the member for Parkdale (Mr. Dukszta), also very ably covering off the Ministry of Health. But one really has to ask oneself whether that is really sufficient scrutiny of the work of a ministry whose spending is now up to the level of a couple of billion dollars a year.

For reasons of the way in which the media works, and other things like that, we tend to sort of concentrate our fire in a very few areas. To some extent, there is a tendency to take cheap shots; to come up with something that we know will grab headlines. With great respect, like the kind of things that the member for Downsview (Mr. Singer) had to say yesterday on the OHC condominium sales. It is that kind of thing. It is so much more difficult to get the information together and the knowledge for a really sustained critique of what the government is doing. I suggest that all of us in opposition, Mr. Speaker, are subject to this kind of problem.

The Legislature itself is being hurt by that problem. And if the Legislature is hurt, then I think that we are all involved -- partisan considerations apart. There isn’t the quality of debate, the quality of thinking, the quality of interchange that ought to take place.

I can see, Mr. Speaker, that this isn’t only a problem for the opposition parties -- perhaps this is not quite apropos on this particular bill. But I can see that the ministers of the Crown are persons who are harried and beset almost beyond reason. Some of that is because of the political circumstances, which make it more difficult to be a minister of the Crown nowadays than it was, say, back in 1971, and I don’t want to go into those any further. The other thing, though, relates to the very heavy burden of running the affairs of the Crown and of trying to relate together, and so on. They simply can’t put it all together.

If that’s the case for ministers, with the kind of resources that they have, then one has to ask: “What is the situation for members of the opposition with the very limited kind of resources that we have?” I will give you a couple of other examples before I sit down, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart) and I struck a common chord the other day when I said that I couldn’t get more than two bills out of the Clerk’s office here when I needed them in a hurry. I was told to go over to Bay St. to the bookstore. Now, that’s very nice, but that means that a secretary -- of whom I only have one and who works seven hours or so, and works very hard each day -- has to spend a half an hour of her duty to slip over to Bay St. and to come back.

Mr. Speaker, when we try from time to time to get copies of the consolidated statutes or of other statutes from behind the Speaker’s chair, they aren’t always available. As a rather lax user of libraries, I sometimes find that my peccadilloes are not tolerated by the legislative library, which seems far more anxious to protect the volumes it has than to ensure the best service possible to busy members who are trying to get information in a hurry.

There is a whole series of petty frustrations about this place which should not be visited upon people who are earning more than $20,000 a year and, for the most part, devoting their full time to the business of this particular Legislature.

The government has its own processes of consultation with interest groups around the province. Members of the opposition are often not invited into those. In other cases where they are invited to them, we don’t take part because it is their show and not ours. In other cases, even though we would like to take part, we just simply have too many other obligations. We can’t do it as consistently as we would like to. I would like to go to every meeting of the provincial-municipal liaison committee, because the Treasurer isn’t really doing a bad job with that particular committee. That’s Merry Christmas to the Treasurer. However, we would like to be able to consult too.

We find it frustrating when the government rams business through, and we have said that several times before. It is also frustrating when you simply lack the resources to get together a list of the 30 to 40 heritage groups in the province and get a bill or a letter out to them quickly and get their comments back in time in order to comment on a particular situation. Again, it is difficult to seek comments from maybe a couple of hundred municipal leaders across the province when you are working with a very limited kind of resource with which we soldier on.

So there are real problems, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to put them on the record and I won’t speak any longer now. I hope that the Board of Internal Economy will be seized of this kind of situation and that the board may, in fact, work almost like a continuing Camp commission, in continuing to try to improve a situation which no more than a few years ago was far worse than it is today.

If I can make one other comment related to the bill, Mr. Speaker, I think that the reformulation of the Board of Internal Economy is a welcome change in putting representatives of three caucuses in there. I think I really question, however, the fact that the government side, between its caucus representatives and members of the cabinet, has a majority.

I think that I would support a reduction in the number of cabinet ministers in that Board of Internal Economy to the point where we had a member of the cabinet, a caucus member from the Conservative side, and a caucus member from each of the two opposition parties and, you, Mr. Speaker. In other words, there would be an even balance from both sides of the House and then the Speaker himself, in his independent position, would have the deciding say in case of a profound disagreement. Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker: Any other hon. member wish to speak to this bill? If not, the hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a lot of notes of comments that have been made by the hon. members, mostly from the other evening’s debate. I think it’s rather unnecessary for me to reply to most of those comments because certainly the vast majority of them, and I believe all the constructive comments, have been taken into consideration and are now a part of the amended bill.

To comment briefly on the remarks that have been made by the speakers today, the matter of riding offices has been mentioned by several speakers, in fact, by speakers from all three parties. It certainly was not commented upon to any degree in the commission report, but I understand there is a fourth report of the commission to come down finalizing their total responsibilities and that this will deal with or make some recommendations regarding riding offices.

The hon. member for Ottawa Centre spoke at great length about research staff and more facilities for members of the opposition parties. I think, Mr. Speaker, this new organization which this bill sets up, the Board of Internal Economy, and the Camp commission recommendations that have now been implemented, giving substantial increases in funds for research purposes to the opposition parties, has gone a long way in meeting these requirements.

Mr. Cassidy: It’s only the beginning. It really is still quite inadequate, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre says it’s only beginning. I reiterate that I think it’s going a long, long way, Mr. Speaker. But we will never agree on that and I don’t expect the hon. member to agree.

Mr. Cassidy: No. The gulf in resources is far too great still.

Hon. Mr. Snow: In any case, Mr. Speaker, basically the money for both the opposition leaders’ offices and so on is now to be settled by the assembly here. We took out the percentage figure that was in the first bill, which I think is an improvement.

The hon. member for Kitchener made a considerable contribution in his comments, Mr. Speaker. I think on one point that he brought up relating to

section 82, sub c, subsection iii, regarding the representative on the Board of Internal Economy for the third party, that clause can be improved somewhat. I have an amendment drafted, where if we go into committee with this bill, we can improve that slightly, without taking up a lot of time which I know we all feel is rather precious today.

As for the comment regarding

section 8(f), I am advised by the drafters of this legislation that the word “financial” is not needed in there, that the matters that are referred to here are covered in some other way. They refer to the duties of the board that are financial, organizational and administrative. I don’t think there is any need to amend that particular section.

Also the member mentioned

section 91 and the fact that that

section comes into force on the day that this bill receives royal assent and the fact that certain members of staff may not have had ample opportunity to consider their position, or whether they wished to stay with the civil service or join the staff of the Office of the Assembly. There are some complications here. I understand certainly the member’s concern.

These changes have been under consideration for some time, of course. The staff, I think, in most cases have had consultation and opportunity to consider their status. There are other staff; there are staff from my ministry, a small number of staff in my ministry that are now handling some of the duties that will be assigned to the Office of the Assembly that are transferring, too. In order to get this office set up and in operation to carry out the intent of this Act, and on the advice of Mr. Speaker and the Clerk, I feel it is advisable that this

section stay as it is.

I really don’t feel there is any great hardship. I think it is covered well in the Act that the members of the public service who join the Office of the Assembly are to retain every right that they have. They are to have the opportunity to maintain their seniority in the public service and to transfer back. For instance, if a clerk from my ministry transfers to the Office of the Assembly now and six months from now an opening that would be a promotion for that clerk becomes available back in my ministry or in another ministry he has the perfect right to apply for that competition.

I think the staff between the Office of the Assembly and the public service will be kept so that they will not lose any opportunities for advancement and will be able to transfer back and forward.

I think that covers most of the comments, Mr. Speaker, that were raised today and, as I say, I think the ones for last week were covered in the new bill.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: I understand this is to go to the committee of the whole House?

Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, just for that one small amendment, I guess we have to do it. We have to go into committee anyway.

Clerk of the House: The fifth order, House in committee of the whole.

House in committee on Bill 170,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ACT

Mr. Chairman: Are there any questions, comments or amendments to any

section of Bill 170 and, if so, what section?

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South):

Section 89.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Isn’t there an amendment?

Mr. Chairman: I wonder if the minister has some amendments he might outline.

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): Yes, on

section 82.

Mr. Chairman:

Section 82. Would the minister move his amendment before the discussion?

Hon. Mr. Snow moves that

section 82(1)(c)(iii) be amended to read: “one from the caucus of the party having the third largest membership in the assembly.”

Mr. Deans: You’re trying to be sure you people will have representation after the election. That is what it is.

Hon. J. White (Treasurer, Minister of Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs): We’re trying to be sure that when the socialists divide into two they don’t have two representatives.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further discussion on

section 82?

Are there any further comments, questions or amendments to any other

section and, if so, which one?

Mr. Haggerty:

Section 89, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman:

Section 89. Will all sections carry to

section 89?

Agreed.

section 89:

Mr. Haggerty:

Section 89(1) says:

“If any complaint or representation is at any time made to the Speaker for the time being of the misconduct or unfitness of any employee of the Office of the Assembly, the Clerk of the legislative assembly may cause an inquiry to be made into such complaint or representation.”

I make reference to subsection 2 which says: “ ... the Lieutenant Governor in Council, reprimand or suspend him ... ”

I believe that if there are a number of female employees included it should be included in this. I think the terminology there should be corrected.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, I’m advised the

Interpretation Act covers that matter.

Mr. Chairman: Shall

section 89 carry?

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): I want to ask a question just for purposes of clarification.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. Stokes: Since they’re not classed as civil servants -- they’re considered public servants under the aegis of the Office of the Assembly -- do you not think it advisable that if they want to sit down and discuss something with the Speaker, you provide them with the authority to at least sit down, talk things over and be able to appoint a small committee within their groups for purposes of consultation, if for no other reason, or if there is something undue that is happening that they’re not clear on or they feel that they’re not being adequately represented?

Is there some vehicle -- a committee -- so that they could sit down and chat even in an informal way with those responsible for carrying out the aims and the objectives and to make sure that the Office of the Assembly is working in an efficient manner?

Within the CSAO, or any other organization, this is recognized as something that’s advisable, but it seems to me that there’s no opportunity for anybody here. I’m not singling out any particular group, whether it be pages, attendants, Clerks, Hansard staff or anyone else, but there should be some opportunity for them to be able to approach the Speaker and those who are responsible for carrying out the duties of the Office of the Assembly if it should arise. I see no reason why some provision in this bill couldn’t be made for that express purpose.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, there is certainly nothing in the bill to prevent it. This was discussed the other night. There is nothing in the bill to prevent any type of a relations committee. Certainly it would be expected that this would happen. You have the Speaker, the Clerk and administrator and it would be expected there would be a staff relations committee. I understand that now Mr. Speaker and the Clerk are working out administratively a procedure by which these things you bring to our attention can be discussed. There is certainly nothing in the bill that prevents it. I understand that it’s already organized.

Mr. Chairman, the employees of the Office of the Assembly are actually the employees of ourselves, as the members, in the operation of this assembly they have, I think, ample opportunity, or will have certainly as far as I’m concerned, to meet with the Board of Internal Economy or with each and every one of their 117 representatives who sit here in these seats -- soon to be 125, I guess.

Section 89 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further discussion on any part of this bill?

Bill 170, as amended, reported.

Clerk of the House: Bill 81, the Provincial Parks Municipal Tax Assistance Act, 1974.

PROVINCIAL PARKS MUNICIPAL TAX ASSISTANCE ACT

Mr. Chairman: Are there any comments, questions or amendments to Bill 81? If so, to what section? The hon. minister wishes to make a motion.

Hon. Mr. White moves that subsection 1 of clause (

a) of

section 4 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“$5 per acre for each of the first 100 acres of each such park and $2 per acre for each acre in excess of 100 acres in each such park up to 10,000 acres in each such park and 50 cents per acre for each acre in excess of 10,000 acres in each such park, or”

Hon. Mr. White further moves that subclause (

i) of clause (

b) of the said

section 4, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“$5 per acre for each of the first 100 acres of such land and $2 per acre for each acre in excess of 100 acres up to 10,000 acres and 50 cents per acre for each acre in excess of 10,000 acres, or”

Hon. Mr. White: Sir, this amendment will authorize payments in respect of both provincial parks and commission parklands to municipalities. The payment of 50 cents per acre for provincial parks in excess of 10,000 acres will be authorized. As the bill now reads, no payments may be made on acreage in excess of 10,000 acres.

These enriched payments will mean an additional $41,375 will be paid to the municipalities affected. Those areas which will benefit include Dysart, which has 87,600 acres of Algonquin Park, and Kaladar, Effingham and Anglesea, which have 13,130 acres of Ben Echo Park.

I have a second motion. Will I put it now or later?

Mr. Chairman: We have a second motion. I think we should deal with any discussion on

section 4. Then we’ll proceed with the next amendment which applies to

section 6. Is there any discussion on this amendment to

section 4?

section 3:

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Actually, the minister introduced his amendment before I realized what

section it applied to. I did want to make some comments on

section 3 prior to that. They are general comments which I think have been clarified in my mind and relate to the present grants in lieu of taxes being paid by the Niagara Parks Commission. I have spoken to the minister’s people this morning and have now been assured that the whole park will not be treated as one 3,000-acre park but as various parks in various municipalities to which the basic 100 acres will apply in each municipality for each park. That was the question which concerned me the other day, and I did receive an answer this morning from his assistants under the gallery.

Speaking to the minister’s amendment, the extra 50 cents per acre over 10,000 acres affects relatively few parks -- I think two parks. Algonquin is the main park which receives a considerable additional sum of money and Bon Echo Park in the Kaladar area. All are down in eastern Ontario. When the cutoff for the $2 an acre was 10,000 acres, it was these parks that were adversely affected. This is a help.

My concern is over parks that have been assembled into one municipality, and I think Mono Rocks park is an example of where they have been assembled in 100-acre lots. The tax average, as I mentioned the other day, is roughly $400 to $600 revenue to that municipality which will be continued to be paid, I understand, until the park is developed. But once the park is developed, if it is situated all in one municipality, then the first 100 acres will attract only a $500 grant and the other acres beyond the 100 will attract only $2 an acre.

There is quite an advantage or disadvantage in this scheme, Mr. Chairman, depending whether or not the park is situated all in one municipality or is broken up within three municipalities. I think at some future date the minister should maybe give a little consideration to that, because in the final analysis from the way I read the bill the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier) makes the determination as to who is going to get how much. I think even the breakdown I received for the St. Lawrence Parks setup gives the money to 14 different municipalities.

That is very fine, because that park is strung out in a lot of municipalities and each municipality gets the advantage of the basic $5 per 100 acres. But if the situation were such that that were all in one municipality, it would reduce that $23,000 revenue tremendously. I feel that the formula used here could adversely affect the tax base in many municipalities.

The other thing I would like the minister to comment on, Mr. Chairman, is if there are any statutory provisions whereby parks should be paying money to the municipality for their commercial concessions. Niagara Parks has paid a substantial sum, I think $53,000. The provision of this Act will be in addition to the $53,000 or $56,000 by the Niagara Parks Commission. Then we have the contrast, Mr. Chairman, where the St. Lawrence Parks Commission hasn’t been paying a nickel to the local municipalities.

I just wonder why there is this discrepancy from one provincial park to the other, and if this is because it’s just a matter of decision of the park board. If that is the reason, I think something should be done about that.

Mr. Chairman: Shall

section 3 carry?

Section 3 agreed to.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Are we coming to

section 4?

Mr. Chairman: We are coming to

section 4 now. The minister has moved amendments. Do you want to discuss these?

Mr. Deacon: What I am concerned about is the effect of the parkway belt, say, in Markham. It might be 2,000 acres in Markham. We are still at the point where on 2,000 acres in Markham the average revenue will be just over $2 per acre on that. That is certainly well below the revenue that is now received on agricultural land as such. This is a basic problem I see in this formula where the minister is treating the parkway belt lands in the same way as the normal provincial parks.

In those areas which are highly developed you are, in effect, putting a burden on the local taxpayers that I think is undue, especially when the benefit of the parkway belt is largely for the developed urban area to the south. I would ask the minister to consider changing that clause. I haven’t worked out what it could be, but for an area where the agricultural assessment is at a certain level you should adjust it, continue it, and make it in line with the general agricultural rate of revenue.

Hon. Mr. White: Well, sir, this is a temporary measure, and a year or so from now we will be going to full grants in lieu of taxes based on assessment.

Mr. Deacon: Oh, good.

Hon. Mr. White: In the meantime there are no such lands affected.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Mr. Chairman, this is a bold and daring stroke by the master of derring do and we support it.

Motion agreed to.

Section 4, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Cassidy: The Christmas spirit has just overcome me.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further discussion on any other

section prior to

section 6?

Section 5 agreed to.

section 6:

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister has an amendment.

Hon. Mr. White moves that

section 6 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“

(3) Notwithstanding subsection (2), the moneys required for the purposes of this Act by a commission mentioned in subsection (2) shall for 1974 be paid out of the moneys appropriated therefor by the Legislature.”

Hon. Mr. White: If I may just provide a brief explanation, the money necessary for payments in respect of parks operated by the various parks commissions for the 1974 taxation year is contained in the appropriation of the Ministry of Treasury, Economics, and Intergovernmental Affairs. This amendment will authorize the payments to be made for 1974 only, to be paid out of the money appropriated therefor by the Legislature. Thereafter, the necessary money will be paid out of the funds of the particular commission.

Mr. Good: Just one point, Mr. Chairman. I think I could work it into this amendment in some way as it’s talking about money being spent. I hope the Provincial Treasurer makes it very clear to the Niagara Parks Commission, the St. Lawrence Parks Commission and the St. Clair Parkway commission that this grant by the province in lieu of taxes should in no way affect the grant.

When I spoke to the chairman of the Niagara Parks Commission, who just left the chamber a moment ago, that was the first he was aware -- at least that he let on to me -- that this was going to be in addition to what they are already paying the municipality. I think that’s a very important point. Also, the Provincial Treasurer should look into the situation in the St. Lawrence Parks area where they have made no payments to the municipalities up to the present time from park moneys received.

Hon. Mr. White: This will be correctible also when we go to the assessment method. In the meantime, I am able to assure the House that the Niagara Parks Commission has been paying about $50,000 as payments in lien of taxation, and this will continue.

Mr. Good: Well, the bill doesn’t affect them.

Motion agreed to.

Section 6, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any other comments, questions or amendments to any other

section of the bill?

Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Chairman, there was a point put by the member for Waterloo North the other day which I didn’t respond to at the time. He pointed out that no payments are made in respect of Quetico Park, Polar Bear Park, Lake Superior Park and other large parks in northern Ontario. This is correct, but the reason no payments are made is because these parks are in unorganized areas and there are no municipalities to receive the money.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the bill be reported?

Bill 81, as amended, reported.

COUNTY OF OXFORD ACT

House in committee on Bill 174,

An Act to amend the County of Oxford Act, 1974.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any comments, questions or amendments to this bill? If so, to which section?

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.

section 3:

Hon. Mr. White moves that

section 3 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“

(2) The said

section 114 is amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“

(9) Notwithstanding

section 4 of the Conservation Authorities Act, the county council may appoint to the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority the same number of members as the local municipalities within the county were entitled to appoint in the year 1974.”

Hon. Mr. White: Now, sir, may I point out that this was done at the request of the member for Oxford (Mr. Parrott) and acceded to by us because it does seem unfair and unnecessary to downgrade the representation of a county when that county undertakes of its own volition to restructure and modernize its affairs.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Especially when it does so of its own volition.

Hon. Mr. White: I wouldn’t want some diminution to discourage counties from what they see to be necessary and desirable consolidations internally. That’s the reason for this amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the amendment carry?

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, neither would we, and I would be glad to support the amendment.

Mr. Cassidy: I would like to raise a question here, Mr. Chairman. I think it’s an interesting amendment, and we will support it, but is this an invitation to other upper-tier municipalities across the province, like regional Ottawa, to negotiate with their own area municipalities and possibly acquire the responsibility for representation on that local conservation authority? And does that represent a change in policy on the part of the government?

Hon. Mr. White: Oh no, sir, I can’t call it an invitation. I do point out, however, that the Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee has had two or three sessions with the Minister of Natural Resources, and he is considering alterations of one kind and another. Now, I wouldn’t want this to be misinterpreted. What he is not considering is making conservation authorities a committee of a regional council. With that qualification, he is prepared to re-examine existing arrangements to see if improvements can be made.

Motion agreed to.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further comments, questions or amendments to any other

section of the bill?

Bill 174, as amended, reported.

Hon. Mr. White moves that the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House begs to report three bills with amendments and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading upon motion:

Bill 81, the Provincial Pa