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

November 7, 1977

31st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L042 - Mon 7 Nov 1977 / Lun 7 nov 1977

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO CONTRACTS

TORONTO TRANSIT CONSULTANTS

HOSPITAL CUTBACKS

ASBESTOS HAZARDS

FINANCIAL PROTECTION FOR FARMERS

JOB CREATION

INCLUSION OF HYDRO WORKERS IN PROVINCE-WIDE BARGAINING

FLOODING AT NURSING HOME

TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY

WINTARIO GRANTS PERSONNEL

ONTARIO SECURITIES COMMISSION

NORTH BAY HOSPITAL

DISPLAY OF DAIRY PRODUCTS

BRIBERY CASE

PIPE PRODUCTION

MINOR HOCKEY PLAYERS

PROVINCIAL GRANTS

PETITION

MINIMUM DRINKING AGE

MOTIONS

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

CHILDREN’S SERVICES PROGRAM

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT

CONDOMINIUM PROPERTY MANAGEMENT FIRMS ACT

VISITOR

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (CONCLUDED)

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I have a message from the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor signed by her own hand.

Mr. Speaker: By her own hand, Pauline M. McGibbon, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, transmits supplementary estimates of certain additional sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1978, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly, Toronto, November 7, 1977.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO CONTRACTS

Mr. S. Smith: A question for the Minister of Energy, Mr. Speaker, regarding today’s Globe and Mail

article which indicated that the minister is “unhappy” with certain of the operations of Ontario Hydro and its relationship to the government does this unhappiness include the fact that there is still no contract with the Lummus company for heavy water plant D? What is the delay in the signing of this contract and would the minister not agree that the ultimatum with regard to the construction of the plant is extremely weak since there is no contract that has been signed which can then be cancelled?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I would like the Leader of the Opposition to know that I am a joyful man, not an unhappy man.

The answer to the question in connection with the contract is that as matters stand that contract was signed. So I am happy; as a rule, I am a happy fellow. No, to the second part of the question and to the third part of the question, it is my understanding that the contract is signed.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, since the indication from Hydro until just now has been that the contract has not been signed, can the minister indicate to us exactly when the contract was signed, what the reason was for the delay and whether this contract in fact is exactly the same kind of contract that we had so much difficulty with under Bruce B?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I would be delighted to get the date for the Leader of the Opposition in terms of the actual signing of the formalized contract, although he should have a pretty good feel of its terms and the contents, and how it compares with B, in view of his many communications and conversations with the chairman of the board and so on --

Mr. S. Smith: They refuse to give it to me.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I am sure he has all of that information now, but I would be happy to get the signing date.

Mr. S. Smith: May I simply ask two things? One, will the minister please table the contract and, secondly, is he not aware that the information I requested from the chairman of Hydro during the meeting he keeps referring to, has been denied me by the chairman of Hydro pending some authorization from the minister, which authorization has not yet come and will the minister give it?

Mr. Stong: Yes or no.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Again, may I say in direct reply to the Leader of the Opposition that there has been no refusal from me or no permission required by me for the chairman of Hydro to supply information pertaining to the questions on that list.

I said in the past, to the Leader of the Opposition, that the chairman of Ontario Hydro does not require my permission, has not sought my permission. As far as I am concerned, the Leader of the Opposition is entitled to sit down with the chairman to get all the information he wants.

Again, it is my understanding that because of the penetrating and the very wide scope of the information requested, it has taken Hydro some time to put it together. I don’t know how many people they have working on it, but I am sure that you would put a lot of people to work in connection with that.

Mr. Nixon: Well, you’ve got 25,000 jobs over there.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Increasing employment opportunities.

Mr. S. Smith: It’s one of my job-creation programs.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: That’s your contribution to the unemployment problem in this province, is it?

Mr. S. Smith: That’s right.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: As to the matter of the tabling of the contract, the member asked the chairman of Ontario Hydro for a copy of the contract relating to Bruce B; he very joyfully gave him that contract. I don’t see why that type of information couldn’t be shared in connection with Bruce D.

TORONTO TRANSIT CONSULTANTS

Mr. S. Smith: A question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications: Will the minister explain why it appears to be the policy of his government to prevent Toronto Transit Consultants -- that’s the consulting arm of the TTC -- from doing business? Under what authority would the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) have told Chairman Godfrey that Toronto Transit Consultants are not permitted to do business outside?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I would suggest that the hon. member ask the Treasurer that question.

Mr. S. Smith: The Treasurer being absent, Mr. Speaker and by way of supplementary, may I ask the Minister of Transportation and Communications to make a clear statement as to whether it is or is not the policy of this government to prevent Toronto Transit Consultants from doing business on a paid basis outside the city of Toronto and outside the borders of this province and this country? Would he please make a clear statement of this; and could he explain whether in fact this is part of any prohibition of Toronto Transit Consultants from doing this kind of business, and if so is it part of a general policy? As with Gray Coach, is it that the TTC mustn’t do anything that’s profitable?

Hon. Mr. Snow: As I recall it, this request from Metropolitan Toronto was for an amendment to legislation to allow the setting up of this corporation. It was not a request to my ministry, I did not deal with it; it was a request to the Treasurer and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs for special legislation.

Mr. S. Smith: The minister has no objection?

Mr. Cunningham: Would the minister not agree that this direction is only a rather blatant attempt to continue to prop up the UTDC with further work that is completely unnecessary and which would further legitimatize this wasteful exercise of the UTDC?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, Mr. Speaker, I wouldn’t agree with that.

HOSPITAL CUTBACKS

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Health: In view of the news stories today on the statements by the Ontario Hospital Association, is the Minister of Health willing (

a) to indicate publicly that he is not happy with the prospect of 4,000 workers out of jobs in the province of Ontario at this point in time, and will therefore attempt to correct the financial disparity which the association claims exists; and (

b) that it is utterly unacceptable to the province of Ontario to have the imposition of a $5 a day deterrent fee placed upon patients in hospitals in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Let me deal with the last part of that question first. I think my leader and my colleague, the Treasurer, have indicated on a number of previous occasions when the question of deterrent fees has come up -- and I certainly have, too -- that we have no intentions, no plans, to introduce deterrent fees. Certainly, one hears from time to time from a variety of sources, professional and otherwise, that one of the means of beginning to get a handle on health care spending is, in some manner or means, forcibly to draw to the attention of the individual citizen exactly how much the system is costing.

I’m sure the member has heard as much as I have about the free health care system, which obviously it isn’t.

[2:15]

Mr. Lewis: Entering hospital isn’t quite like going to a doctor’s office, however.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Not necessarily.

Mr. Deans: You cannot just walk into hospital. The minister knows that.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Dealing with the first part -- I haven’t read the newspaper articles. The first I heard of it was this morning when somebody from the Star got me out of the shower to ask me about it.

I don’t know where the 4,000 figure has come from. In September when the Treasurer was speaking with the PMLC he did at that time, as you know, outline in fairly broad terms the strategy for the next year. He indicated that the social development field -- the Ministries of Community and Social Services and Education and my own -- would see in 1978 at 5.9 per cent increase overall.

The fine details of that as to how much will go where in the Health ministry’s appropriation have not been finalized. I think this is perhaps a little premature, but certainly the allocation to the hospitals will be less than the rate of inflation. I would anticipate and hope that whatever adjustments will undoubtedly have to be made can come about mainly through attrition and probably through the closing of excess or surplus active treatment beds around the province.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary -- maybe I can just make two quick supplementaries: None of the Ontario hospitals can, of themselves, introduce a deterrent fee, I take it, in the province of Ontario. That must be a legislative enactment. Therefore, is it fair to assume that the minister’s disavowal of that, today, means that $5 a day won’t be applied?

Secondly, has he looked at the possibility that the Ontario Hospital Association is using these threats -- and some of it is clearly in the category of threat -- as a kind of opening bargaining position with their collective bargaining which is just about to begin around the province, and that this is a highly undesirable way for the Hospital Association to start off negotiations?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I haven’t thought of those comments quite in that context.

By the way, while I’m on my feet, I should point out that there is a group of students here from Heron Valley Junior High School in the great riding of Don Mills.

Mr. Speaker: That is not permitted.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: And a group of ladies from the Lawrence Park Community Church.

Mr. Lewis: You will all be so pleased to know your MPP showers in the morning.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That’s right. There may be something rotten in socialist Denmark, but not in Don Mills.

I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker. I know that was quite out of order.

I think I have already indicated that as far as the $5 notion is concerned that’s right -- there is no legislative authority for a hospital do to that. Of course there is what is known as differential income on semi-private and private accommodation, which is well known and a long standing practice.

I do not discount the possibility sometime in the years ahead that a different means of funding health care will have to be found. It will spread the load evenly, but forcibly draw to the attention of the public that this is a very expensive system, that it is not free, that the premiums don’t even begin to cover the cost of health care in the province, and that it’s something which we all have to bear.

What was the rest of the member’s question?

Mr. Lewis: The minister has satisfied me.

Mr. Nixon: Don’t you have something else to say while you are on your feet?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I could think of something.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: If 5.9 per cent is the amount of increase the ministry is permitted, and if Mr. Hay is saying that the minister is allowing him four per cent in the hospital sector, can he confirm or deny his figure of four per cent and accordingly, if 4,000 layoffs are not going to occur, how many layoffs does the minister anticipate will occur and what measures is he taking to deal with these particular persons?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: First of all, I have already indicated that the 5.9 per cent figure, which was mentioned in the Treasurer’s September 16 statement to the PMLC, I believe, covers generally the social development field. I went on to say, in answer to a question from the member for Scarborough West, that it is a little premature at this point to indicate what the exact allocations are going to be within the Ministry of Health. I may say that we in the Ministry of Health, as compared to the other ministries, probably have shared disproportionately in that overall appropriation, looking at the next year.

The four per cent is a little bit of conjecture. They have been told repeatedly over the fall months that the rate of increase will be less than the rate of inflation. They know from the Treasurer’s statement that it is 5.9 per cent to the social field within the government. I have heard various rumours from the hospital community; it has been interesting to hear them as I have gone around the province.

It is a little premature. We are working on next year’s budget. I would hope to be able in December -- early December preferably -- to give the hospitals a firm indication of what the percentage will be in the overall hospital appropriation. Obviously the hospital appropriation is a very important one for us, since it is 53 per cent of our budget. And the earlier we can get those figures out so that they can properly plan, the better it will be.

I reiterate that I would anticipate, I would hope, that the bulk of whatever adjustments will be necessary can be carried out through attrition. I don’t want to mislead the House; I don’t discount the possibility that in some areas it may mean layoffs, but I would hope that the bulk of the adjustments can be through attrition.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. If the Minister of Health anticipates layoffs, can he confer with his colleague, the Minister of Colleges and Universities, so that we don’t take students into the health courses and into the laboratory courses at our community college and have these students spend three years of their lives and all kinds of money and then come out with no jobs? Why don’t they have a little better planning over there?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As a matter of fact, if the hon. member will check his facts he’ll find, for instance, that the enrolment in nursing courses around the province has been cut -- it is off about 40 per cent from a couple of years ago -- and that enrolment in the medical schools has been frozen for the last couple of years on a voluntary basis on the part of the faculties of medicine.

The whole area of medical manpower planning is a matter of great concern to me so that we don’t lead young people’s expectations to unrealistic levels or, for that matter, that we don’t saddle ourselves with additional financial burdens which are unnecessary.

ASBESTOS HAZARDS

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Labour, if I may, Mr. Speaker. Now that Dr. Irving Selikoff has brought his figures on the relationship between industrial disease and the exposure to asbestos, up to January 1, 1977, showing an incidence in the field of cancer of the larynx greater than twice that which would be expected in the population as a whole, can the minister make a public statement that she could well understand cancer of the larynx being designated as an industrial disease in this province and that compensation flow therefrom?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I have today learned of Dr. Selikoff’s letter in response to a letter written to him by Dr. McCracken, the executive director of rehabilitation services for the Workmen’s Compensation Board, which was sent to Dr. Selikoff on October 11 inquiring as to any further information that Dr. Selikoff might have. Dr. McCracken was attempting to maintain the flow of information between these two bodies because we feel that this is very important.

I can tell the hon. member for Scarborough West that the information which Dr. Selikoff has provided in his letter of October 24 is being received with great interest and is being subjected to the usual examination by a qualified epidemiologist. When that information is available it will be addressed, along with the information which we gather from other equally widely reputed and equally wise and equally renowned occupational health physicians in other parts of the world in order to assess it and to make the decision regarding the relationship between asbestos and carcinoma of the larynx and then to make the decision about whether, indeed, it should be a compensable disease.

Mr. Lewis: Why must we in this province always wait so long to confirm that which we already know? Since it was Dr. Selikoff’s data on stomach cancer related to asbestos which caused the implementation of stomach cancer as an industrial disease -- is the minister denying that? -- since that was the case, and since the incidence of laryngeal cancer now evidenced by Dr. Selikoff is much higher than that for stomach cancer, which we already regard as an industrial disease in Ontario, why does she resist it so bitterly to the painful end? Why can she not do what is just sensible and scientific and do it? What is wrong with the minister?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what I am doing. I am being sensible, rational and scientific and not motivated by political expedience, as the member for Scarborough West is.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege --

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply to this question, if that is your wish, sir.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of privilege before the reply, I feel I want to say, if I may, to the minister, that this has absolutely nothing to do with political expedience. This has something to do with a man named Aime Bertrand in Sudbury, who is waiting while he is still alive to see if he can get a pension from the WCB, which Selikoff’s figures confirm he deserves. It’s as simple as that.

Hon. B. Stephenson: It’s not that simple. The decision which is made has to stand for a very long period of time and will be used as an example by all other compensation organizations in North America. We are attempting to do it in the most humane, most expedient and the wisest possible way and that, of course, is to take into consideration the information which was developed by a number of very well renowned specialists in occupational health. Dr. Selikoff is not alone. I do not in any way denigrate Dr.

Selikoff’s capabilities, but the decision regarding stomach cancer was made on the basis of the epidemiological study of the reports from all of the specialists around the world. It was not directly related to Dr. Selikoff’s reports alone.

Mr. Lewis: Come on. Who did Miller visit, if not Selikoff?

Hon. B. Stephenson: In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that there is one very important sentence in Dr. Selikoff’s letter of October 24, which the hon. leader of the third party has neglected to state, and that is, and I quote: “However, our data do not provide information concerning what proportion of laryngeal cancers might be associated with asbestos exposure. Your case control study will provide much better information in this regard.”

Mr. Lewis: That’s right, so what?

Hon. B. Stephenson: That, Mr. Speaker is the operative

section of this letter. The study which is being done in Toronto sponsored by the Workmen’s Compensation Board will provide all of the other agencies in the world with the kind of information which they don’t have at the present. Prospective studies are of much more value in this area than retrospective studies are. Dr. Selikoff’s information is valuable because it provides us with an insight and a hint that indeed there may be some problem.

Mr. Lewis: A hint? A hint?

Hon. B. Stephenson: We must ensure that we know the size of the problem, the proportions of the problem and the way in which it can be best dealt with.

That is the course we are following, Mr. Speaker, the responsible course, which will help the Aime Bertrands and all of the others who are working in this field in Canada.

Mr. Lewis: If he lives long enough.

May I ask one final supplementary? Can I ask the minister to consider another operative

section of this letter, namely the one that reads: “There was a clear, statistically significant increase in observed deaths from laryngeal cancer compared to those expected,” and another operative sentence: “Thus there is useful evidence that asbestos workers suffer an increased risk of laryngeal cancer”? May I ask the minister if she does not understand that those are the central points of the letter? The percentage of total laryngeal cancers attributable to asbestos is not the important point, the point is the relationship between one and the other and that has been established. Doesn’t the minister understand that?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I understand it obviously very much better than the member for Scarborough West does. Indeed, there are figures which would suggest that this is so. They have not been corroborated and in any scientifically valid decision they must be corroborated. That is precisely what we are attempting to do.

Mr. Mackenzie: Arrogance personified.

Hon. B. Stephenson: It is not arrogance, it is rational.

Mr. Lewis: It is called benefit of the doubt. Remember that phrase?

[2:30]

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture, but before I put it, it would be unfair not to treat everybody in the gallery the same, so I would like to welcome 110 students and their teachers from the Georgian Bay Secondary School in Meaford.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order. Two wrongs do not make a right. The hon. member for Don Mills was obviously out of order. The decision not to welcome daily visitors was made on the basis of a recommendation from the Morrow committee and I’ve already got a letter of apology from the hon. Minister of Health.

Mr. Nixon: After he made his announcement.

Mr. Speaker: He didn’t make the announcement in full. Any announcement like that is clearly out of order, based on a select committee report that was accepted and adopted by this Legislature. I would ask members to respect that recommendation.

Mr. McKessock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m sorry for being out of order.

FINANCIAL PROTECTION FOR FARMERS

Mr. McKessock: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. In view of the minister’s announcement on Friday morning pertaining to the deferring of the junior farmer mortgage payments in the light of the poor returns to farmers this year, did he say he was deferring the principal portion of the mortgage payment only? Yes or no?

Hon. W. Newman: I’m saying that we could work it out several ways. There will be a special committee set up within my ministry --

Mr. McKessock: Yes or no?

Hon. W. Newman: -- to deal with it on an individual basis, and maybe refinance it over a longer period of time, so that the farmers can adjust to it, depending on their individual circumstances.

Mr. McKessock: Supplementary: Did the minister say it would be the principal payments only?

Hon. W. Newman: Principal and interest could be refinanced together, depending on the circumstances.

Mr. Mancini: Straightforward answer, Bill. Straightforward answer.

Mr. McKessock: Supplementary: In view of the fact that on a $5,000 amortized mortgage payment the principal might only be a tenth of the payment, or $500, and the remaining portion, $4,500, could be interest, does the minister not think that this would be a token portion if he were only to give the interest? I certainly want to see the minister give consideration to interest and principal, which I believe he indicates he will do right now. Is that true?

Hon. W. Newman: I don’t know what the hon. member is talking about when he talks about $4,500 or $5,000, five-year amortized. It could be in interest. I don’t know how he does his calculations, but as far as I’m concerned, we want to do the best we can to help the farmers through a difficult situation. That’s exactly what we’ll be doing with our committee.

Don’t forget we have crop insurance that covers most of the crops in the province of Ontario -- not all, but most of them. One of the reasons for doing this is to help those farmers who have problems in specific areas. It will be dealt with on a specific basis, with the individuals being counselled by our financial people to try and help them over a very difficult time.

JOB CREATION

Mr. Deans: I have a question for the Minister of Labour in her capacity as manpower minister: I wonder if the Minister of Labour has had an opportunity to look at the projections for unemployment in the construction industry during this coming winter, and if she’s been able to determine the effect that this 60 per cent increase which is being projected will have on the steel industry; what the cutbacks in the production of steel will have in the extractive industry and in cutbacks in the extraction of ore; and what all this will do to the consumer purchasing power of the people of Ontario?

And I wonder if she can give us an indication of what recommendations she might be making with regard to this drastic reduction both in employment and in purchasing power?

Hon. B. Stephenson: The projected decrease in construction this winter is somewhat disturbing. There is no doubt about that I don’t have any magic figures which tell me precisely what the spinoff effect is going to be in all of the areas which the hon. member has mentioned, but I would mention at least one or two areas in which we have made some recommendations.

One of them, of course, I think, was obviously being followed by the Ontario Municipal Board when it decided to proceed with its Toronto bearings, apparently against the advice of some of the friends of the hon. member, who feel that those hearings should be delayed for yet another two months.

Mr. Deans: What are you talking about?

Hon. B. Stephenson: It is hoped that indeed some of the stimulation which is occasioned by the concern of the province for construction in Toronto might develop into some stimulus for other builders to begin some kind of contracts and construction within that area. It is a little easier, I suppose, for that to happen within the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto than it is in some smaller regions, but indeed the projected figures for unemployment in construction are greater in Toronto and the Toronto-Hamilton area than they are for any other part of the province.

Mr. Deans: That is because more construction goes on there.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Of course. That is a matter of very real concern and one over which we do not have total control, but it is one about which we can express our concern and attempt to provide some encouragement in specific industries in order to try to alleviate the problem.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary: I am not interested in the minister’s concern. What I am interested in is knowing whether as manpower minister she has made any recommendations of any kind with regard to specific proposals of this government to deal with what is projected to be a 60 per cent decrease in employment opportunities in the construction industry; and what effect that will have on related industries in the province of Ontario?

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Mr. Deans: Surely as manpower minister she has something to offer? She has done nothing for the last three years.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I’m sorry the hon. member is not interested in my concern about this.

Mr. Deans: I don’t care about your concern.

Hon. B. Stephenson: But in answer to his question I would say, yes, we have made some specific recommendations.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary: Has the minister then met with the Treasurer or with the Minister of Government Services (Mr. McCague) to discuss the possibility of increasing the amounts of revenue to be made available for construction directly related to government in the province of Ontario in an effort to offset the 60 per cent increase that is projected?

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, I have not met with those two individuals specifically --

Mr. Deans: Whom do you talk to?

Hon. B. Stephenson: But I certainly have met with the Premier (Mr. Davis).

INCLUSION OF HYDRO WORKERS IN PROVINCE-WIDE BARGAINING

Mr. O’Neil: I have a question of the Minister of Labour and I know she will be sensible, rational and scientific in her answer. In view of the announcement that Mr. S. R. Ellis was appointed as industrial inquiry commissioner on October 31 to inquire into the possible inclusion of Ontario Hydro construction workers in province-wide, single-trade bargaining, can the minister assure the House that he will hold public hearings on this matter, hearings which will have some effect on the Hydro bills paid by everyone in Ontario?

Hon. B. Stephenson: As a result of my commitment at the time of the clause-by-clause examination of Bill 22, I did suggest that this was the route that we would follow. I have appointed Mr. Ellis as the sole commissioner in this area. He has committed himself to providing a report on the subject within the time-frame which was suggested which was three months. Whether that gives him sufficient time to hold wide-ranging public hearings or not, I am not aware.

Mr. Ellis is going to have to work that timetable out for himself. But he will be drawing upon the expertise of both management and labour in the construction field in order to develop background information and probably to assist him in making a decision about whether public hearings would be widely held or whether they will be held only in one or two locations.

Mr. O’Neil: Supplementary: May I ask then that the minister keep the Legislature up to date on the form that these hearings will take and whether or not there will be public hearings?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes, I shall.

FLOODING AT NURSING HOME

Mr. Cooke: I have a question of the Minister of Health. I would like to ask the minister if he would look into a situation at the Greater Windsor Nursing Home in my home riding. Specifically, could the minister investigate as to why residents in this home had to sleep this past Saturday night in rooms flooded with six inches of raw sewage and why this recurring flooding problem has not been repaired?

Also could the minister find out why it took 24 hours to get plumbers at the home to repair the problem? Further, could the minister investigate how this home has been able to deteriorate to the filthy state it is presently in, when there had been a pre-sale inspection in February and regular inspections since, the last one of which took place on September 12? I would like the minister to make some kind of a report back to the House when he can gather the information.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The latter part of the hon. member’s statement -- I don’t know if it was a question -- anticipates what I will do. The first we heard of the problem was this morning. We have dispatched a nursing inspector and an environmental inspector to Windsor, to that particular home.

The preliminary information I saw about the home indicated it was sold early this year, preceded, as the member says, by a pre-sale inspection. As per the terms of the revised Act, there was a list of things prepared, which was provided to the then prospective purchasers, that would have to be carried out.

In early October the plans were filed with the ministry for the renovations to bring it into compliance with the revised Nursing Homes Act. Once thorough inspections are carried out by the nursing inspector and the environmental inspector I will certainly try to answer all of the member’s questions.

TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY

Mr. Reid: I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications which might aid the cause of national unity in the country. Will the minister consider renaming the Trans-Canada Highway in Ontario as Highway 1, thus doing away with the hodge-podge of numbers that we have across the province and going along with the action taken by six other provinces of Canada?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I hadn’t considered that suggestion, but I will. I don’t know how you could do it -- we have two different highways which are a part of the Trans-Canada system and I don’t think we can call them both Highway 1, but I’ll certainly be prepared to look at it.

Mr. S. Smith: Name them 1A and 1B.

Mr. Reid: Is the minister aware that all the western provinces, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland have designated it this way? Does he not think that it might bring the country a little together if we had one highway from coast to coast?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I’m not sure that renumbering the highway would make the distance any shorter from the Quebec border to the Manitoba border --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: One Canada, one highway.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- so, consequently I don’t know whether it would bring the country any closer together or not in that sense. I will look into the possibility of the numbering as it relates to the other highways.

Mr. Lewis: You could call it the Robarts-Pepin Trail.

WINTARIO GRANTS PERSONNEL

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, my question is of the Minister of Culture and Recreation. Is it true that his ministry is planning to phase out the contract personnel working on Wintario grants, based on a consultant’s report which in essence recommended that the personnel on contract be phased out and in their place, on a full-time basis, people be placed who have university degrees? Is that a fact or not?

Mr. MacDonald: Darcy will veto that. That is adding to the social service.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The answer generally speaking is yes, but not necessarily for the reasons quoted in the report of the consultant. We have been advertising for consultants and even attempting to regularize that particular function within the ministry and the qualifications have been widely advertised.

I think in general terms the answer is yes, but not necessarily for all the reasons that the hon. member recited. Is that fair enough?

Mr. Grande: A supplementary: Would the minister be able to table that consultant’s report in the Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I’d like to take a look at it.

Mr. MacDonald: Why?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Let me take a look at it and I’d be glad to respond more definitely after I’ve seen the report. There may be other parts of the report that haven’t been acted on, that’s why I’d like to see it first.

Mr. MacDonald: If it’s prepared by public money and it’s a basis of public policy, then it should be tabled.

Mr. S. Smith: Do you mean that you only table it after you’ve acted on it?

ONTARIO SECURITIES COMMISSION

Mr. Breithaupt: I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations with respect to the correspondence that we’ve all received from Malartic Hygrade Gold Mines (Canada) Limited. Can the minister advise us as to the situation with respect to these various claims and particularly with his response to such phrases as “improper activities,” “illegal embargo,” “censorship” and “conspiracy,” that each of the three letters, of which I presume all members have received copies, refers to? Just what is the situation and what are these claims and these problems that are being scattered about, apparently quite openly, as to the operation of the Ontario Securities Commission?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: A series of communications has been flowing for some time now. As each set of allegations comes in they are dealt with by the people who are specifically alleged to have committed the offences as set out in the communications. I can only assure the House that, at this time, the allegations are watched as they come in.

Mr. Lewis: That’s what you call dispassionate.

Mr. McClellan: You believe in impartial judges.

[2:45]

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- a careful analysis is made of the allegations contained therein and we are up to date in our awareness of the problem and our intentions to deal with them. There is nothing there that we feel has warranted any action other than the action we have taken so far. The letters are not ignored. They are read carefully, dealt with carefully and analysed by the people who are affected.

Mr. Breithaupt: Supplementary: Surely, analysis by the people affected is hardly sufficient if, in fact, there are claims which have been made public -- charges of illegal matters, conspiracy and other very serious allegations. Surely, the minister is not content that only those persons who have been referred to are dealing with the letters. Does he have nothing to enlighten the House as to whether further action is being taken, or to explain this whole involvement which appears to be, at least on the surface, a series of very serious allegations?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am sorry, when I indicated that the people named in the letters had dealt with the accusations what I was saying was that in each case the letters are referred to the people about whom the accusations are made. They are asked to provide explanations and responses which are well developed. The fact is that it has been dealt with by the ministry in detail; an explanation is there.

We are satisfied that our course of action to the present time is appropriate, that it doesn’t warrant any further action at this time. As the letters come in, they are not just slammed into a file but are taken up with the people involved who then report back and update us as regards the accuracy or inaccuracy of those specific charges.

In simple terms, the allegations are dealt with as they are made. We have, obviously, found no substance in those allegations to warrant any action that the writer of the letters thinks might be in order.

Mr. Breithaupt: Is the minister content that this matter is entirely groundless and that things are at an end or can we expect to continue receiving further letters?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I can’t comment as to whether the member can expect to receive further letters. I can simply tell him that on the basis of what we have at the present time, no further action is going to be taken. That depends of course upon what we may glean from the latest correspondence or the correspondence yet to come.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: I am as mystified as anyone else about this series of correspondence. It keeps coming across my desk. If, in fact, the minister is correct that these accusations are without substance, does the minister not agree that there might be grounds for a slander suit or a libel suit by various persons referred to and by the Ontario Securities Commission referred to, since these accusations of improper activities, illegal embargo and so on are pretty serious accusations?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The specific people about whom the allegations have been made are well aware of their rights, the member can be sure. They have, obviously, chosen not to take action for slander or any of the other remedies they may feel they have. My responsibility is only to determine whether there is any substance to the allegations made and if there is, to take appropriate action.

Mr. S. Smith: Just a quick supplementary. There is in the letter of October 21, this sentence; “I wish to present further proof of improper activities of the Ontario Securities Commission.” Would the minister not agree that the Ontario Securities Commission is not an individual who has to know his rights and take action? It is, in one way or another, an arm of the people of Ontario or the government of Ontario and, surely, it’s the minister’s responsibility to decide whether to take action.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the Ontario Securities Commission or the Residential Premises Rent Review Board, just to name two, took slander action against people every time they say they are doing something wrong or inaccurate or unfair or illegal, then we would spend double the provincial budget just taking these people to court. In fact, we could spend most of our time dealing with what a couple of members of the NDP say about the rent board. No, the answer is we don’t sue every time someone says something nasty about one of my boards.

NORTH BAY HOSPITAL

Mr. Dukszta: A question to the Minister of Health; Is the minister aware that the Ontario Hospital in North Bay is presently receiving goods from a strikebound wholesale distributor called Sam Butti Wholesale Limited? If the minister is aware, would he be prepared to order the hospital administrator to cease receiving goods from this strikebound company and to look for other distributors in the area?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No.

Mr. Dukszta: Supplementary: Why not?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: If I recall it correctly, this is based on a tender on lowest price for certain goods for the psychiatric hospital. I don’t think we should get involved through that hospital in a dispute between a supplier and his employees.

Mr. Dukszta: Is the minister aware that he is involving himself in strikebreaking?

DISPLAY OF DAIRY PRODUCTS

Mr. Blundy: To the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: Is the minister aware that food retailers in Metro Toronto are still displaying dairy products under high intensity lights, even though researchers reported at least two years ago that fluorescent lights can impair the flavour and nutritional value of milk and butter? What plans does the ministry have to correct this matter?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will be pleased to receive details from the member with regard to any precise locations he has in which we may go and take the appropriate action. The answer is, where we know it is going to happen and where we know it is happening, we take action. Would the member be kind enough to send me over the list and we will look into it right away?

Mr. Blundy: I think almost every supermarket in the area, and certainly in my riding, is displaying milk in this way.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Send the details over.

Mr. Blundy: Mr. Speaker, I will send him a list tomorrow.

Mr. O’Neil: Supplementary: I wonder if I could ask the minister whether he has taken any action against any of these outlets to this point?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I don’t have the information with me but I’ll be pleased to get it.

BRIBERY CASE

Mr. di Santo: I have a question for the Attorney General. Could the Attorney General inform the House why in the case of Melvin Kurtz, the Crown attorney chose not to prosecute the bribers or the briber?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I don’t know the details of that case. Was it Mr. Kurtz? If the member would give me a few more details outside after the question period in order to assist me to identify the case, perhaps I could respond to his question.

Mr. di Santo: Supplementary: In view of the fact that as a result of the probe of Judge Waisberg on crime in the construction industry, Mr. Melvin Kurtz was prosecuted for bribery, my question is why did the Attorney General’s office choose not to prosecute the bribers in this case?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Again, I am not familiar with the details of this prosecution, but I will attempt to respond to the member’s question.

Mr. di Santo: A further brief supplementary: Can the Attorney General then report to the House on this particular case and also how many prosecutions were laid as a result of that inquiry and, if so, when?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I assume that information will not be difficult to come by. If we can ascertain it, we will so advise the House.

PIPE PRODUCTION

Mr. Kerrio: I have a question of the Premier. Is he aware of the fact that the US legislature and the federal government have passed the legislation now for the joint pipeline on the Alaska Highway and is he aware of the fact that we can produce the steel in Ontario and that we have the plant in Welland to produce the pipe? The concern I have relates to the question that was asked about the last pipeline, where the only guarantee is that there will be a general competitive term in the contract. Is the Premier aware that there is no real commitment and that on such a basis the last large order of pipe was delivered from Japan?

Mr. MacDonald: That’s the order of Jack Horner, that good Liberal.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The member should tell his federal colleagues.

Hon. B. Stephenson: It’s the feds -- not Queen’s Park.

Mr. S. Smith: What are you doing about it?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You’re sitting on your butt.

Mr. S. Smith: I don’t smoke.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You ought to try it -- something to calm you down.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, you’re going to ask for somebody else to decease before I get my answer out.

In answer to the hon. member’s question, I do understand that the United States Congress -- not “the legislature” -- has more or less approved this. Of course we’re quite interested in having as much as possible of the pipe and other material produced in the province of Ontario. As I believe I said in answer to a question asked by one of the hon. member’s colleagues last week, certainly from our standpoint we will be making every effort to see that as much as possible of the pipe and other material is purchased in Canada and in particular, of course, the province of Ontario.

As the hon. member well knows, it is not always simple for a provincial jurisdiction to carry on these international negotiations, in spite of the attempts by some. None the less we will, without question, make our points of view known.

Mr. Mancini: What did you go to Japan for?

As a result of our involvement over the years, the economy of this province has done relatively well and will continue to do so. We will continue to look after the interests of the people in this province, which means we will make our very best efforts to see that pipe for the pipeline and other material is purchased in this province, although it is not within our jurisdiction. But certainly we will make every effort.

Mr. Kerrio: Supplementary: In view of the fact that there is no real commitment in the contract and because of the great number of jobs that we should be looking to in the future, would the Premier take it on himself in his high office, and possibly with the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett), to see if we can’t get the federal government to make such a commitment, which is not in the contract? I would ask the Premier to take that first step.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am certainly one of those who is prepared to deal with issues that aren’t always totally spelled out in a contract, unlike some members of the member’s party. I also must say to him, I can’t table any contract because it’s not available to us. But we will be making, as I said -- and I really am repeating myself -- every effort to see that Canadian producers, and particularly Ontario producers, get as much of this contract as is possible.

Mr. Makarchuk: Supplementary: Is the Premier prepared to table in this House all the correspondence which will be involved in his representations to other levels of government?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I might table all mine if the member will table all his --

Mr. Makarchuk: It’s a deal.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Being suspicious of some of his correspondence, I’m not sure I really should have made that offer. I would only say that I certainly would give very careful consideration to tabling any correspondence I have on this matter.

It’s also quite obvious that while the member may be dependent totally on correspondence in the mails, I can’t table for him any telephone conversations I might have or any conversations the minister may have or any personal discussions.

Mr. Breaugh: Just give us the tapes.

Hon. Mr. Davis: In answer to the member’s question, to the extent that any correspondence might be relevant, certainly I would be delighted to share it with the hon. members of the House. But please don’t preclude me from doing my best by means other than correspondence.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: New question. The hon. member for Welland-Thorold with a new question.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, in fairness, there have been only two supplementaries.

Mr. Speaker: Three.

Mr. Peterson: Two -- one here and one over there.

An hon. member: It’s a very important question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Peterson: It deserves a little more attention in view of the fuzzy answers that were given here. I beg your indulgence, Mr. Speaker.

I would ask the Premier this: In view of the very serious way in which we regard these negotiations, understanding the limitations that are placed upon him, I would ask the Premier to make a statement to this House, either himself or through the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett), as to what has transpired so far, and what he is planning to do in these negotiations, because they could be very critical to the industrial future of the province.

[3:00]

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Mr. Peterson: Would the Premier do that in the very near future?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would be delighted to share as much as I can with the member for London Centre. I know of his very genuine interest in this subject and I would be delighted to share it with him.

MINOR HOCKEY PLAYERS

Mr. Swart: A question of the Attorney General: He is aware, is he not, that a student at the hockey school at the Bill Burgoyne arena last Saturday was removed from the ice simply because she was a girl, a seven-year-old girl, after having been admitted as a boy? Does he not think this situation is getting out of hand? Is he prepared to make a statement, so he can single-handedly see that the Human Rights Code is observed as he did to remove violence from the hockey on ice?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: As I indicated on Friday, I harbour certain prejudices as a father of three daughters. Some of these personal prejudices involve the lack of opportunity for our young women to participate more actively in organized sport. I feel very strongly about that. But so far as this matter is concerned, it is a matter that I assume is within the purview of the Human Rights Code. As the member knows, this is not administered by the Ministry of the Attorney General.

Mr. Swart: Supplementary: Would the minister consider sending a general directive to the recreational groups and sports groups outlining the necessity of conforming with the Human Rights Code? Would he suggest to the Minister of Culture and Recreation that perhaps the awarding of Wintario grants could he determined on the basis of conformity with the Human Rights Code?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. minister has already indicated that the Human Rights Code is not within his jurisdiction.

Mr. Swart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The only thing that is out of order is the member.

Mr. Swart: Is the second part of my question not in order as a supplementary? It is unanswered.

Mr. Speaker: New question.

PROVINCIAL GRANTS

Mr. B. Newman: I have a question of the Premier. As the Treasurer has admitted that the provincial grants system is unfair, and as Windsor has suffered more than any other municipality in the province of Ontario because of the inaccurate equalization factor, what action is the Premier going to take to right a long-time wrong from which Windsor has suffered where it has lost approximately $20 million in grants, which it would have rightly received had a proper equalization factor been used?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member for Windsor-Walkerville is well aware of the complexities, and to a certain extent the inequities, of the assessments that exist in the province. I guess what I hear him saying is that he and his party would, of course, support --

Mr. S. Smith: No, that is not what he said.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- the introduction of the solution to the problem.

Mr. S. Smith: He asked for fair play. Fair play is what he asked for.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh no, of course not, you guys just don’t have the intestinal fortitude.

I would only say to the member for Windsor-Walkerville --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Will the members for Rainy River (Mr. Reid) and Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) please be quiet while the Premier answers a legitimate question from the member for Windsor-Walkerville?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I really think on that point of order you should, in fairness, ask those two members to decease, as you recently asked some of the rest of us. I really wouldn’t wish that on either of them -- well, there’s the odd day, but not too often.

Mr. Mackenzie: When is Mr. Speaker going to bring the Premier to order?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am doing my best to answer this very difficult question.

Mr. Warner: You are wasting the time of the people.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can’t answer it if the members are not prepared to listen; if they will listen I will try to answer it. I would say to the member for Windsor-Walkerville that the government recognizes that there are certain inequities, Windsor being one of them; I think Sarnia may be another. The member for Sarnia is pointing vigorously at Hansard to note that. It may be that even Brampton is not getting its fair share, I’m not sure.

We’re working at finding solutions to these problems. I think the Treasurer met with some members from Windsor just a few days ago and we will continue to find solutions to this very difficult and complicated matter.

Mr. S. Smith: What about fair play?

Mr. B. Newman: Is the Premier aware that each year delayed costs the city of Windsor’s taxpayers another $8.5 million? Is he prepared to make an unconditional grant to the municipality in lieu of that loss?

Hon. Mr. Davis: So that it will save the House a little time -- the other members from Windsor are anxious to be on the record too, I sense -- I say to the member for Windsor-Walkerville and to the other members from Windsor, that we’re aware of the difficulty. Are we prepared to make an unconditional grant? The answer to that would have to be no.

An hon. member: At this time?

Hon. Mr. Davis: At this time. I thought I answered it for you.

Mr. Cooke: I would like to ask the Premier if I understood his first answer correctly. Is he saying that the government is committed to working out a solution with the city of Windsor for the year 1978 and will there be a solution with some equity built into it for 1978? Or is he going to continue to put off the problem?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m sure the hon. member is well aware that working out a solution for Windsor also involves many other municipalities and taxpayers across the province of Ontario. In that there are many other members in this House who do not come from Sarnia or Windsor, who I’m sure have an interest in this, and knowing that whatever is given or altered in one area may mean a slight diminution in other areas and that we want total equity in whatever we do, to say that we will solve this problem in 1978, might be a shade premature.

PETITION

MINIMUM DRINKING AGE

Mr. Peterson: I beg leave to table a petition with this House from 343 members of First St. Andrew’s United Church in London, Ontario, Canada. If I may just read what it involves: “In view of the increasing number of accidents caused by young drivers under the influence of alcohol, we the undersigned members of First St. Andrew’s United Church of London, Ontario, hereby ask you to urge the government of Ontario to bring legislation to 1. raise the minimum drinking age from 18 to 20; and 2. curtail the advertising of alcoholic beverages, especially on television.”

MOTIONS

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the supplementary estimates for the Ministry of Community and Social Services presented today be referred to the standing committee on social development to be considered in the time allocated to the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, just a brief comment on the motion if you’ll permit it, particularly while the Chairman of Management Board is here. I understand that those supplementary estimates are supposed to reconcile a statement made by the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Norton).

Mr. Breithaupt: That comes next, Robert. There’s a four-page statement coming up.

Mr. Nixon: How the heck do I know there’s a four-page statement coming up?

I want to know if we can be assured by the government that there is a reconciliation with the amounts that have been put in the former estimates.

Mr. Speaker: It is my understanding that is indeed the case.

Mr. Nixon: Good.

Motion agreed to.

CHILDREN’S SERVICES PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Auld moved that the following amounts in the votes and items of the 1977-78 estimates of the Ministries of the Attorney General, Correctional Services and Health, being the amounts made available to the Ministry of Community and Social Services in connection with the children’s services program, be referred to the standing committee considering the estimates of the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

Hon. Mr. Auld: If the hon. members would agree, I’ll simply read the total. It is set out, and I understand that copies of this have gone to the other parties and caucuses.

Total for the Ministry of the Attorney General, $2,722,000; total for the Ministry of Correctional Services, $35,619,100; total for the Ministry of Health, $62,085,800; a grand total of $100,426,900.

I have a statement of explanation to go with it.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, we’re prepared to dispense with the reading of the figures so long as they appear in detail in the votes and proceedings so that we’ll have a record for the benefit of the House,

Mr. Speaker: Is that agreed? They will be. It’s a statement more than a motion, I suppose.

The Chairman of Management Board has an explanation.

Mrs. Campbell: Yes, I am aware of it, but you are putting the motion. I would ask that we have the explanation for discussion before the motion is put.

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, is there a motion, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: There is a motion, all right, but as outlined in the one I read.

Mr. Nixon: That has already been accepted.

Mr. Speaker: No, there are two separate motions. One was with regard to time, and the other motion is that on the debate of the children’s services program in conjunction with the 1977-78 estimates, they be referred to the standing committee considering the estimates of the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

Mr. Breithaupt: That was put and carried.

Mr. Speaker: No, it has yet to be carried. The Chairman of Management Board has an explanation.

Hon. Mr. Auld: As a result of the number of questions that were raised in the Legislature last week concerning the debate of the estimates of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, I would like to submit the following information and proposed solutions:

Bill 23, which received third reading on July 11, 1977, transferred the responsibility of services related to children from the Attorney General, the Minister of Correctional Services and the Minister of Health, to the Minister of Community and Social Services, effective July 1, 1977. The related funding for these transferred services appeared in the 1977-78 estimates for the thee ministries which were tabled prior to the transfers taking place.

Although Bill 23 provided the transfer of all powers and duties that could be transferred, there was no vehicle available to transfer the funds. The Supply Act, 1977, will provide the authority for the transfer of the funds for children’s services for the three ministries to the Minister of Community and Social Services. But of course, the Supply Act cannot be passed until all the estimates have been voted. As well, there is no available means to revoke the amounts placed in the other three ministries’ estimates.

[3:15]

The administrative procedure involved in the transfer of the funds will be authorized by way of Management Board certificate in accordance with the Supply Act, as in previous practice.

Therefore, in order that the estimates of the Ministry of Community and Social Services can be continued, including the estimates for the children’s services program, I am introducing a motion that will allow the various amounts included in the estimates of the Ministries of the Attorney General, Correctional Services, and Health related to the transfer of responsibilities of children’s services, to be referred to the standing committee considering the estimates of the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

This will allow for a full discussion on the children’s services program during the debate of the estimates of the Ministry of Community and Social Services. The respective funds would not be voted as part of the estimates of the Ministry of Community and Social Services but would be voted as part of the estimates of the three individual ministries. As previously stated, the funds would subsequently be transferred legally to the Ministry of Community and Social Services by way of the Supply Act, 1977.

In addition, I introduced a supplementary estimate earlier today, on the message of Her Honour, the Lieutenant Governor in Council, in the amount of $3,665,500 to provide for the additional amount of funds required by the Ministry of Community and Social Services to administer and operate the total combined functions associated with the children’s services program.

A supplementary estimate, by definition, increases an original appropriation or establishes a new appropriation, but does not reduce or transfer appropriations. Therefore, this means could not be used to transfer the related funds from the three ministries to the Ministry of Community and Social Services. Only the additional requirements of the ministry, over and above the amounts provided by the other three ministries, are included in the supplementary estimates.

These proposed actions have been discussed with and concurred in by the senior legislative counsel and the assistant clerk of this Legislature. I also understand that the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Norton) will provide the standing committee with a complete reconciliation of the amounts provided for the children’s services program so that the debate on his estimates can be continued in a complete and orderly way.

I trust that this will clear up and will resolve the issues raised by hon. members recently in the Legislature, and in committee, concerning the 1977-78 estimates of the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

Mrs. Campbell: In responding to the motion, I must confess I have great difficulty. I have been trying to understand the procedures in this particular situation and I have sought all the advice that I could in the time allowed to me. What does bother me is this: As I understand it, when the estimates are tabled they are accompanied by a message from the Lieutenant Governor and they do not, in any way, relate to amounts. They are simply estimates in estimate books.

According to the information which I have had, and as I understand it, the estimates are subject to review and/or amendment prior to going to the committees providing those amendments are before the House.

The difficulty with this situation -- and I’m not going to belabour it because I think that I probably stand alone in my concerns, but I feel they should be on record -- is that we now have a procedure established by which we will be discussing -- not, I understand, today, but at some future time -- the estimates of the Ministry of Community and Social Services or the supplementaries, subject to receiving from the minister at some time the reconciliations which I understood we would have before the meeting was to commence today. We don’t have them yet.

As I understand it, Management Board cannot transfer of its own initiative. I have just been handed a copy of an earlier Supply Act and I haven’t had the opportunity to discuss it, but do I understand then that by motion at the time of the introduction of the supply bill at the conclusion of the estimates, at that point we may vary and transfer, when we can’t do any of these things before the committee? This is what is causing me concern.

The function has been transferred to Community and Social Services. The votes will be in the other three ministries, save and except for those which were already in Community and Social Services. By what procedure do we then ensure the transfer out, because according to my information Management Board cannot delete, the committee can’t delete, the transfer can’t be done? I really want only to be sure that we can do what is being proposed, as I see it quite irregularly, so that we can be clear that these moneys will, indeed, be available to that function in that ministry?

How do we accomplish that if no one in the intervening period is able to effect a transfer or is able, in fact, to delete a vote? I still don’t understand it. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, if I am being dull in this, but I do want to understand it before I proceed to deal with these estimates.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I regard the solution that is being put forward today by the Chairman of the Management Board as an acceptable solution. I think it does set straight what I can only characterize as incomparable bungling in the management of the organizational transfer but it seems at last, in my view, to be set straight and it’s a procedure that I am comfortable to live with.

As I understand it, the moneys in each of the three ministries other than Community and Social Services will be voted on in each of the estimates of the other three ministries. We will vote in committee on the supplementary estimates. We will discuss all of the items in social development with respect to Community and Social Services. There will be a Management Board certificate issued under the Supply Act to legitimize and authorize the transfer of funds from the three old ministries to the Ministry of Community and Social Services once supply has been voted, and I think that that deals with the inadequacies of the previous procedures and that we can proceed.

I want to make it clear, however, that I am not willing to resume the debates on Community and Social Services until we are provided with a complete reconciliation statement which deals with the transfers from the Attorney General’s ministry, Correctional Services and Health on a program and line basis, because, as I indicated on Friday, we have received four different sets of figures from the Ministry of Correctional Services, discrepancies as between the estimates book figures and the Community and Social Services resource and program book summaries.

As recently as a quarter to three, I was provided with another set of figures with respect to the actual amounts of the supplementaries. I simply want to have a clear and coherent reconciliation statement in plenty of time in advance of the next sitting of the committee so that we don’t have to waste the committee’s remaining four and a half hours on trying to figure out where the dollars are but can, in fact, address the real substantial issues of children’s program and children’s policy.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I would like to assure the hon. members opposite that the complete reconciliation statement will be available to them. It may in fact be here now. I have not personally received it yet but it was prepared and was in the process of being reproduced for the members of the committee. I expected it to arrive here by 3 o’clock this afternoon. I can certainly assure members, since I understand it is the decision of the committee not to sit until tomorrow afternoon, that it will be delivered to them this afternoon as soon as it is received by me.

Should they have any questions in the intervening period between now and the sitting tomorrow, I will make my staff available to explain any further questions they might have.

Mr. Breithaupt: I wanted to confirm the comments of the hon. minister with respect to sittings of the committee this afternoon. We had agreed that if this information was here in sufficient time and if the reconciliation had been satisfactorily explained, particularly to the two critics involved, the member for St. George and the member for Bellwoods, that this could then be proceeded with, probably tomorrow afternoon.

The one point I wanted to raise in the statement of the Chairman of Management Board follows along on the sequence of events the member for Bellwoods had proceeded through; that point was one which he did not raise, but which I understand is also included in the sequence, to the effect that in effect the moneys which are being transferred under the responsibility of the Ministry of Community and Social Services are in fact blocked to the use of the other ministries from which they are being transferred.

We will, therefore, vote those moneys technically in the estimates of the other three ministries, Attorney General, Correctional Services and Health, but in fact the responsibility and the control of those funds becomes a function of Community and Social Services, and will be discussed all at one time once proper reconciliation is received to the satisfaction of the two opposition critics.

I think if the Chairman of Management Board can confirm that sequence, then probably we have resolved the matter.

Hon. Mr. Auld: That is correct, and in fact that has been the case since the passage of Bill 23 in July. That bill, now

an Act, transferred the responsibility for and the authorization for spending funds for certain activities. Consequently, even if we hadn’t proceeded any further today, the ministers of the three ministries from which the funds are being transferred have not had the authority to spend, nor have they I assume spent, any money on those functions.

What has happened, for the benefit of all members of the House, is that since the passage of that bill the Minister of Community and Social Services has had the responsibility and has carried it out and has charged back by journal entry those expenses, because the only ministry that currently can pay them is the old one, but the only ministry that can do it is the new one. In the normal course of events, we would have had our estimates completed and the relevant clause in the Supply Act, as it has been in the Acts that are passed each year. This is from 1975 but it is the same as this one will be. I will just quote it for the information of all members and so that it is in Hansard:

“Section 1(2): Where in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1976” -- in this case -- “powers and duties are assigned and transferred from one minister of the Crown to another minister of the Crown, the appropriate sums in the votes and items of the estimates upon which the

schedule is based” -- I wish we could put a few more commas in these -- “that are approved to defray the charges and expenses of the public service in the exercise and performance of such powers and duties may be assigned and transferred from time to time as required by certificate of the Management Board of Cabinet to the ministry administered by the ministry to whom the powers and duties are so assigned and transferred.”

[3:30]

In the normal course of events when we have transferred, as we do every year it seems to me, some responsibilities from one place to another, it has been after we have had supply. In this case, it’s quite a distance before and the responsibility has been carried out quite properly. We have now quite properly, by supplementary estimates, put forward the total sum. This is because the supplementary estimates cover the additional money for the children’s services which is not found in any of those three ministries.

The motion permits the committee to hear the discussion of those amounts, even though they aren’t in the estimates. When supply is given, then the certificate of Management Board will be issued.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Leluk moved first reading of Bill 95,

An Act to amend the Assessment Act

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Leluk: Mr. Speaker, the bill provides an exemption from municipal taxation for additions and improvements to real property that are designed to aid persons who are physically handicapped.

CONDOMINIUM PROPERTY MANAGEMENT FIRMS ACT

Mr. Leluk moved first reading of Bill 96,

An Act to register Condominium Property Management Firms.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Leluk: Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for the registration, bonding and inspection of condominium property management firms.

VISITOR

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’d like very briefly to introduce to you and members of the House a young gentleman in the Speaker’s gallery, Mr. George Allain, who is 18 years of age. The reason he is in the gallery is that the International Optimists’ Club every year has designated National Youth Appreciation Week, and this happens to be the week, starting today.

Traditionally they have designated an honorary prime minister and governor general. The Ontario district of Optimists’ International has this year, in an effort to recognize that there are other levels of government, designated an honorary premier of the day. This young man has been given that designation and is here in that official or unofficial capacity.

It’s also very coincidental that the young man who is assuming this responsibility -- and there is the odd day I wouldn’t mind him doing it, not many though -- also, by coincidence, happens to be a student at a certain high school in a certain community that is well known to the Premier of this province that happens to be in the city of Brampton. I would hope that someday, and who knows -- well I was going to get political.

Our guest, or your guest, is an honour student. He is a very excellent athlete; is very involved in community activities, particularly in the recreational field. My first experience with him was during a period of slight tension with the school situation in Peel some few months ago.

It’s an honour for me, Mr. Speaker, to introduce him to the members of the House and on behalf of all of us, I am sure, say thank you to Optimists’ International for its belief and confidence in our young people, that it is prepared to set aside this week and give it the kind of focus that I think is important.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (CONCLUDED)

House in committee of supply.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, just before we resume these estimates and for the sake of understanding, I thought that perhaps with only two hours and some minutes to go it would be reasonable to assume that these estimates could be completed by 6 o’clock so that we can have the Attorney General on hand and ready to start promptly at 8 o’clock with his estimates?

Mr. Stong: Mr. Chairman, I think it is a reasonable assumption that we should be finished by 6 o’clock. There is only one vote left to go, although there are two very important items in that vote to which we will address ourselves. But I think it is fair to assume two and a half hours will do it.

Mr. Warner: That’s fine.

Mr Chairman: Is that agreeable to the committee?

Agreed.

On vote 1604 Ontario Provincial Police, management and support services program; item 1, office of the commissioner:

Mr. Stong: All of the other items in vote 1604 have been dealt with and approved, except item 1. Upon our conclusion last Friday, I had raised a question with respect to the $9 million that was included in the estimates. I referred to the September 30 financial report. The minister indicated that the money had been spent, but contrary to that the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Auld) indicated that the money had not been spent.

As I understood it, it formed the basis of a contingency fund and was subject to an authorization of commitment and, in fact, would be subject to a Management Board order at the end of February. The Chairman of Management Board indicated February as the example, I am wondering if there is sufficient money in these estimates to cover those situations that will develop until the end of February and whether the $9 million amount of which I speak, and which was reported, is designated for the month of March, being from March until the end of the fiscal year for the Legislature.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, we have just heard the Chairman of Management Board deal with this matter in the House, and we had some discussion at that time. I must admit that I am probably not as clear as I should be in the matter of how these votes are handled when additional funds are required. I do, however, have a statement in regard to the question that the hon. member for York Centre raised at the end of our sittings on Friday morning.

Mr. Stong asked the question regarding a spending increase of $9 million for this ministry during 1977-78. He asked if this had, in fact, been spent and what it has been spent on and how it was authorized.

The actual total is $9,891,600 and the request has been for Management Board commitment only. The Management Board order has not been approved to date. The breakdown of the request is attached. Part of the money has been spent from present appropriations. This is normal practice until a Management Board order has been approved.

I understand Management Board orders are approved quarterly and that we are operating from other sums in our votes, and that as long as we are operating within those sums and get the permission of the House to spend this before we need this $9 million that we are covered. In other words there’s a bulk sum there, and as long as we don’t need this there’s a certain flexibility among the others. But at the same time, the procedure, I think, has been explained to the House earlier this afternoon by the Chairman of Management Board, and I’m afraid I can’t very well enlarge on what he has said.

Mr. Stong: I wonder if the minister could give me an idea, dealing with this specific ministry, how much of that $9,800,000 sum has been spent up to now? Although I assume it forms part of a contingency fund, how much has been spent prior to Management Board approval? Could the minister give me a breakdown of that figure?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, my information is that it’s a continuing process of money being spent and that we don’t have the breakdown as of this time.

Mr. Stong: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Solicitor General could undertake to give me that breakdown before the end of these estimates?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I don’t think I can, Mr. Chairman, before the end of the estimates, unless we go on somewhat after the full 6 o’clock time. I imagine there’s a fair amount of bookkeeping involved in trying to take a particular date and figure out how much has been spent on this vote to date -- say as of 4 o’clock or any particular time. I think we can do it, but I think it would take a little time to do that.

Mr. Stong: Mr. Chairman, I would be satisfied then to have that as soon as convenient to the minister.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased if the Solicitor General would send the breakdown information about the total amount of money which is involved, so that I may get along with this proposal.

Item 1 agreed to.

Vote 1604 agreed to.

On vote 1605, Ontario Provincial Police, operations program; item 1, special services:

Mr. Stong: Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister, I am concerned with several aspects of the first item, special services, as outlined in the supporting material. I’d like to direct a few questions to the minister if I may on some of the headlined activities of the special services branch. I understand it’s under the assistant commissioner. It deals with such things as the anti-rackets branch.

I’m wondering if the minister could give the House some indication what personnel are involved in anti-rackets, dealing with white-collar crime, and more specifically the more sophisticated fraud schemes arising out of business. What is the ministry doing with respect to keeping on top of these sophisticated fraud schemes?

For instance how many accountants are employed by the ministry and on what basis? How many engineers, if there’s a fraudulent scheme involving an engineering enterprise? How many types of professional, and what categories of professional individuals are involved in white-collar crime? I would also like to have some idea of the involvement of this ministry with bank management personnel in solving this type of crime.

Likewise I direct the minister’s attention to the criminal investigation branch under this item, which is dealing, again, with expertise in investigation of major crimes. What is the ministry doing and what types of major crimes are involved or envisaged? Is it simply fraud or what other type of crime is involved?

I’m also concerned, under the intelligence branch heading, about what the ministry is involved with in regard to organized crime in Ontario? What is being done? How many personnel are employed in studying organized crime? What kind of hours are spent and what efforts are made in detection and follow-up in this area by this particular intelligence branch?

[3:45]

I am concerned about the type of personnel that is employed under this heading and what efforts are being made by them to control this situation.

Under the special investigations branch heading is included the matter of drugs and drug control. Does this particular area of item 1 include the employment of RCMP personnel? Are there any RCMP officers on the payroll of the Ontario government with respect to drug law enforcement; that is, drug detection and dealing? Could the Solicitor General give us a breakdown on that area? Or are the police forces of Ontario alone involved in drug detection and control? If so, how much of the police force is directed towards that particular area of special investigation?

I’d like to begin with those questions, if I might.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Those questions cover a great deal of the operations of the force -- and important operations. I have a great deal of information here but I will try to shorten it and make it as concise as I can.

The anti-rackets branch is responsible for the investigation of white-collar crime, including diversified rackets and fraudulent schemes, and of the manufacture and distribution in Ontario of counterfeit and forged instruments such as payroll cheques, money orders, bonds, credit cards and currency.

Files on questionable companies and schemes are continually reviewed to correlate the volume of information coming to our attention, to watch the involvement of province-wide schemes and to investigate and prosecute when there is sufficient evidence to show a pattern of fraudulent activity.

Similarly, records are compiled to show the frequency and volume of counterfeit uttering in the various regions of the province.

The present complement is 30, consisting of one staff superintendent, one chief inspector, 15 detective sergeants, seven acting detective sergeants, two sergeants, one corporal, one secretary, one clerk-stenographer category 3 and one clerk-stenographer category 2.

The member asked specifically about the training of some of these people. My information is that quite frequently in these matters they require outside help in connection with the services of accountants and people of that nature; when they need that kind of service, for the most

part it is contracted out. But at the same time there are some pretty knowledgeable people by reason of experience in the force itself.

Ninety-seven assignments were brought forward into 1976, 494 new investigations were commenced, and 170 carried into 1977. Some investigations were very complex and time-consuming. In a large number of investigations where there was insufficient evidence to prove criminal intent, adjustments were effected to the satisfaction of the complainants amounting to more than $1 million. In other words, they may not have had enough evidence to make convictions and yet a service was still performed as far as the public was concerned under the heading of adjustments.

Cases involving 96 persons charged in previous years with 693 charges were disposed of this year. A further 896 charges against 291 persons were preferred this year. These charges covered a total of 64,131 actual offences. We’re getting into the matter of statistics again when I name the number of persons charged and the number of offences committed.

The total loss to victims in the cases investigated during the year was $5 million in round figures. One hundred and five persons were convicted on 763 charges; 263 persons are still before the courts on 694 charges; 49 persons were sentenced to jail; 20 were given suspended sentence; 28 were fined a total of $578,000; and eight received absolute discharges. Restitution of $80,798 was ordered by the courts. There were 112 dismissals and 221 withdrawals. A total of 331 search warrants were executed.

I don’t expect the hon. members to follow all of those figures, but it does show there has been considerable activity in this field. We go on with the amount of paper that is seized in these cases, and in the investigation of these cases there are problems of time in reviewing all the documents that are involved, even to the matter of storing and getting them ready for trial.

The total amount of counterfeit currency -- passing to counterfeit now -- currency other than seized, throughout Ontario was again very high, being $253,280.50 -- I don’t know how they get the 50 cents in there unless they’re into counterfeiting a few coins -- for the 12-month period. I can give the member a lot of this information if he wants it in detail. Counterfeit money seized and uttered in Canada is composed of about 97 per cent American currency, with the remainder being Canadian. In all probability, this is due to the new multi-colour Canadian currency, which to date has not been duplicated.

There is a lot of interesting information in here which I’ll be glad to share with my friend if he wishes it.

Prosecutions in the branch during the year again covered a great variety of criminal offences and included charges of conspiracy to defraud, attempted fraud, fraud, defraud the public, theft, false pretences, obstruct justice, perjury, make false declarations, possession of valuable securities obtained by fraud, uttering forged documents, impersonation, make counterfeit money, possession of counterfeit money, uttering counterfeit, theft from mails, possession of instruments of forgery, arson and false affidavits. So that covers a wide gamut of offences.

We dealt, of course, with some of the OHIP matters of the Ministry of Health, and that is continuing, as I understand it; some matters of Ontario Place Corporation for our own government. Then you passed to criminal investigations. The Ontario Provincial Police force is required by statute to maintain a criminal investigation branch for the purpose of assisting municipal police forces. This branch, which has been in existence since the inception of the force, provides investigative expertise in the investigation of major crimes to all police throughout the province.

Functions include: investigation of major crimes, such as murder, kidnapping, robbery et cetera within the jurisdiction of the force; assist municipal police in the investigation of major crimes in the province; assist Ontario government ministries in the investigation of criminal matters within their ministries; assistance to the office of the chief coroner in the investigation of questionable deaths; maintain liaison and render assistance to the RCMP, Quebec police force, FBI and other border forces regarding serious criminal matters; provide expertise in the area of hostage/kidnap situations and extradition proceedings; maintain files on all investigations and inquiries made by the criminal investigation branch.

The criminal investigation branch complement is composed of the following: One director, 27 detective inspectors and three clerical staff. They haven’t given me what category the clerical staff fall into there. During 1976, members of the criminal investigation branch were detailed to a total of 373 assignments, including 38 murder investigations. Then we go on and say a little bit about the kind of training these people receive and where, and then some other mentions of some matters that they had been involved in.

I think you passed then to the matter of the special investigation branch, and it is my understanding that there are no RCMP officers on the payroll of our force. There is, of course, much liaison work done by way of joint force operations but they are not attached to our force in any way, nor do we pay for them. They may be working in the same office together, or out of the same premises, but the members of the force involved are each paid by their respective forces, so I understand there are no RCMP staff on our payroll.

The special investigations branch is comprised of three sections which, although they have separate areas of responsibility, all have a relationship in that they deal with an area of mortality, drugs, gambling and liquor. The complement of the branch is comprised of one branch director, 10 supervisors, 46 provincial constables, one secretary and one clerk-stenographer.

I have a list of some of the training they go through and where they take it. The drug enforcement

section with a complement of one inspector, two detective sergeants, two corporals and 31 provincial constables, was established to administer the forces’ drug enforcement program and to provide assistance in investigations requiring expertise. The 31 constables in the

section are deployed at various locations throughout the province in joint force operations with the RCMP, which may also periodically involve local municipal police departments. In Metropolitan Toronto they work together very closely.

In 1976, members of the

section were involved in 3,508 investigations which resulted in 1,247 charges being preferred. These figures do not include RCMP figures as there were many investigations by the RCMP which did not involve

section personnel. I have a list of some of the matters with which they were involved and I’ll be glad to share this information with the member if he so wishes.

Mr. Stong: I wonder if the minister could give me an idea of how the $6.5 million is being apportioned in this particular vote, special services. Could he give me a breakdown under each heading, such as anti-rackets, the auto theft branch, the criminal investigations branch and the intelligence branch, as well as the security and special investigations? Could he give me an idea of how much is allocated to each of those branches?

I understand there is difficulty getting charges laid and enforcement made under the Business Practices Act. It’s been on the books now for some two years and there’s very little activity with respect to enforcement of that Act. I wonder if you could give me some idea of the difficulty surrounding the enforcement of that Act and why there have not been more charges laid with respect to practices under that Act. I wonder if you would direct your attention to it and inform the House with respect to the number of personnel involved in watching and detecting organized crime in Ontario and what the success has been in that area.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: On the administration to special services, I do have a breakdown here but I think you’ll probably be satisfied with the totals. If not, we can share this information. There is $113,000 for the administration end; for anti-rackets, $871,000; auto theft, $213,000; special services criminal investigation, $957,000; special services intelligence, $880,000; and special services special investigation, $1,508,000.

You asked about the number of personnel that we have specifically dealing with organized crime. There are about 125. When we give you that figure, I think there is some problem in saying they deal exclusively with that, because there’s a certain flexibility in the movement of personnel. The figure the commissioner gives me is 125.

[4:00]

Under the Business Practices Act, as my hon. friend knows it’s the responsibility of Consumer and Commercial Relations. That doesn’t help him, though, in giving him an answer to his question.

I was not aware there was any problem between the police and the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I suppose if there is it is a matter of getting the necessary evidence. I think we do our best to support them any time they call upon our services.

I wonder if I could clarify that for my friend. Is he suggesting that Consumer and Commercial Relations has said that we were not co-operative? Just exactly what is the question, because I’m not aware of any problem, and evidently we are not aware of it either?

Mr. Stong: Mr. Chairman, through you, I was given to understand this was the case by a sergeant, whose name I have forgotten, who was in court last week and I happened to meet him as he was trying to get the proper wording of a charge under the Business Practices Act. I understand that it’s a situation that has developed in Hamilton. It’s a landmark case, they’re waiting for the decision on this particular case.

I was given to understand that there were only two or three officers who were charged with the responsibility of investigating under that Act and preferring charges, and that although the Act has been in force for three years now, since 1974 I think it was, there have not been very many charges laid or prosecuted. I’m just wondering: Is it because of the lack of personnel or lack of expertise, lack of court facilities or lack of know-how in how to interpret and enforce that Act on the part of the police departments that there have not been more charges laid? Perhaps you could give us some assistance.

I might say that I’m not suggesting a lack of co-operation; I think it may be the lack of personnel, if in fact there is a problem; and I was given to understand there was a problem in enforcing that Act.

I’m wondering what is being done by way of training personnel. I would imagine it is a very sophisticated and technical Act to enforce and requires expertise and know-how in the different aspects of the business world. I’m wondering what the police department is doing in acquiring such personnel to enforce this Act.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: The Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations does, of course, have its own investigators. It does much of the investigation, which as you have said is highly technical in itself.

The note that has been passed to me is along the line that if it was drawn to our attention it was probably because of some breach of the Criminal Code, in which case we would take it from there and carry on. But as far as the examining of a prospectus and things of that nature, that work is done in the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I don’t know of any complaint reaching my ears where we have not given them the assistance to lay charges for any breach of the Criminal Code, but I believe they would lay their own charges under a breach of their own Businesses Practices Act or the Securities Act or things of that nature.

Mr. Lupusella: In this particular vote, 1605, we are really dealing with an astronomical amount of money. As a reference, I would like to suggest to the Solicitor General that in the next estimates we should have background information as to how this amount of money is spent.

In his opening statement, he spoke about organized crime. That’s the area in which I’d like to get more information, because it seems that the Solicitor General and this government are quite happy about how the issue of organized crime is dealt with in the province of Ontario. I’m not happy about the word that organized crime is under control. We now find out under this vote that we are dealing with this total amount of money. I would like to ask the Solicitor General whether, on top of this money, he is also taking into account the 726 RCMP officers who are presently operating, just in Metro Toronto.

I am not sure whether or not the Solicitor General has the information on how many RCMP officers are involved around the province of Ontario in fighting organized crime.

We are dealing with this enormous amount of money just to keep control of the situation. Also, we see that the federal government is employing 726 RCMP officers just in Metro Toronto, not considering other officers around the province of Ontario. Yet the word is that organized crime is under control.

First of all, I never have received an answer from the Solicitor General -- and I think my colleague, the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), was trying to dig out this particular information last year during the estimates -- as to what organized crime means in the province of Ontario. How do you define organized crime?

If I recall correctly, on November 3, 1977, my colleague the member for Scarborough West (Mr. Lewis) asked that particular question of the Solicitor General in relation to the RCMP officers involved in Metro Toronto and around the province of Ontario. From the answer which was given by the Solicitor General to Mr. Lewis’s question, it seems that the total number, just in Toronto, is 609 plus a support staff of 117, being a total of 726.

The Solicitor General explained that those officers were needed in Metro Toronto because of the increase in drug activity, commercial crime, customs and excise infractions, immigration and passport abuses and organized crime. That is a completely different world, far different to other activities in which the officers are involved.

So first of all, I would like to ask the Solicitor General what he means by the words organized crime. How is organized crime eradicated here in the province of Ontario; and in particular in Metro Toronto? Also, I would like to ask the Solicitor General what kind of leadership he has given, not in relation to organized crime but in relation to the police force, the OPP and the RCMP, to find out what is going on in this field.

Actually, if the Solicitor General and other representatives of the police force have been opposing the issue, then a royal commission inquiry should be called in to investigate organized crime. I am inclined to ask the Solicitor General whether or not he would present briefing material to the Legislature to find out how the government is fighting organized crime. Of course we are not interested in names, but at least we would have an idea how organized crime is operating in the province of Ontario in order that the Legislature might estimate whether or not organized crime in Metro Toronto is really under control, or if it is something this government should take a look at.

At the moment, despite all the information which has been given by the media and by the CBC, I do not, personally speaking, have any knowledge whether or not this organized crime is under control. I am sure the Solicitor General is in touch with the OPP, the police force and the RCMP to have an up-dated report about what is going on in relation to this particular item. We are dealing with a lot of money.

In his official opening statement, quoting from page 7, he said: “The only thing which the Solicitor General has been saying is that as part of our responsibility my ministry has been continually alert to the problem of organized crime in Ontario and has directed effective efforts to contain this type of activity.”

Perhaps he’s alert, but there was the question which my leader raised on November 3, 1977, about the enormous increase of RCMP officers here in Metro Toronto and around the province of Ontario. I am just talking in hypothetical terms but I have to think that maybe organized crime is under control because of the federal government. I don’t know with whom the provincial government has been getting in touch, as a result of the question of extra help from the RCMP. Maybe in that respect organized crime is under control.

We are dealing with an enormous amount of money which can be very well utilized. If there is a problem, I think that organized crime exists and we don’t know how organized crime is operating here in the province of Ontario.

The only thing which the Solicitor General has been giving to us is statistical data. It seems when I went through the estimates last year, and when my colleague the member for Oshawa was requesting an answer to the particular question what is organized crime, the Solicitor General was reluctant to give a particular answer to that.

I would like to know what organized crime is, how it is operating, by which branch of our society it is being eradicated and what the police force is doing to counteract the proliferation of organized crime.

There is no sense in the Solicitor General just providing statistical data. We want the statistical data to have an idea of what the OPP and the police force are doing in the province of Ontario, but organized crime, as I stated previously, is something which is completely different from the activities in which the police force and the OPP are involved.

As to it being under control, the fact that the federal Solicitor General, Mr. Fox, came to Toronto and stated that the province of Ontario didn’t do enough to fight organized crime is something which is raising suspicions in my mind about the whole activities of this government to take into great consideration this particular aspect of our society.

I am sure the Solicitor General has all the information about it and I think he’s supposed to spell out to this Legislature through briefing material on organized crime what is going on and what the police force and the OPP, in co-operation with the RCMP, are doing in relation to this particular problem which is affecting our society.

[4:15]

I continue quoting from the Solicitor General’s statement: “An excellent example is joint force operations where two or more police forces aid each other in a concerted effort to deal with the particular organized crime problem that has been identified. The success of the RCMP, the OPP and the local police forces, through joint forces operations with continuing assistance from the Ontario Police Commission, demonstrates the ability of the various police units to co-operate.”

When I made my opening statement in relation to comments Mr. Fox made here in Metro Toronto that the province of Ontario didn’t do enough to control organized crime, the Solicitor General simply told me: “Why don’t you ask him? For us the phenomenon is under control.”

I don’t know why he made such a statement. The Solicitor General should be deeply involved in that situation. He should provide some kind of leadership to fight back at organized crime if it exists in the province of Ontario. It seems officials of this government are not inclined to call a royal commission inquiry; members of the Legislature should have some background information to analyse and evaluate the seriousness of this problem affecting our society in the province of Ontario.

Of course the total amount of money spent, is spent for a good cause. But we also want to know how the money is spent and what we have achieved by the financial expenditure which has taken place in the last few years to fight organized crime.

I don’t think the public has the assurance organized crime is really under control, despite statements made in the past few months by officials of the police force. I thought the Solicitor General would have provided more information after making such a statement, that organized crime is really under control. I don’t have the statistical data; I don’t have the information. I don’t know what organized crime means or what the police force is doing in relation to this particular factor. I think the Solicitor General is supposed to expose, little by little, this particular problem, because the public is affected by the whole matter.

We need more sense of leadership. It is easy to find the total amount of money which we are talking about in these estimates, because there is a course on how to spend the money. We would like an assurance from this government that organized crime is under control and indication of the branches of our society from which organized crime has been really eradicated. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have an answer on this matter from the Solicitor General.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, I expect there will be more questions on this, and I am particularly looking at the member for Rainy River (Mr. Reid), I would be disappointed if he didn’t have a few words to say about organized crime. My friend from Dovercourt has not asked a specific question, other than what we were doing about putting organized crime under control; since that is a pretty broad subject, I think, Mr. Chairman, it might be wise to wait until all those who wish to speak on organized crime deal with it. Then I will try to deal with it.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I don’t see an item specifically labelled organized crime in the vote before us. However, I do want to say something associated, I suppose, with the control of crime under vote 1605, and I will be brief. It involves the OPP detachment presently headquartered on Colborne Street in Brantford, Ontario, which has responsibility for a large rural area around Brantford.

The minister may know their detachment headquarters is a refurbished home, and the facilities are considered to be inadequate by everyone who has to use them. I won’t bother listing the inadequacies, because the minister must surely have a report in that connection; but on behalf of the citizens in the area, and particularly of the fine detachment which uses those facilities, I wanted to be sure that the minister was aware that the local member -- myself -- also feels they are inadequate.

I understand, of course, that the Ministry of Government Services provides these facilities, but surely it does so only when the minister makes a recommendation in that connection. I did not want to allow these lengthy estimates to go by without being sure that the minister was aware of that need.

I know his mind is concerned with organized crime, but fortunately we don’t feel that we are plagued with that kind of an emanation in our area. It may be because of the efficiency of this very detachment that I’m talking about. I would say, Mr. Chairman, that the minister has the prime responsibility to see that the facilities are kept up to date and this is one area where I would urge that he take some immediate action.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, since the matter has been raised by my colleague from Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, I would take that opportunity as well to refer to the facilities which the OPP uses in the city of Kitchener. I would suggest, even though I have not seen this Brantford detachment office, that whatever it’s like, it must be two or three times better than the facilities that the detachment has to use to service my community.

It becomes, I realize, a matter of great concern to the Solicitor General that the Ontario Provincial Police are not housed and served no doubt as well as he and his officials would prefer. I recognize that it is a serious commitment of funds to upgrade facilities, but I do draw to the attention of the minister -- indeed I’m sure he is aware of it -- the difficulties which our particular communities of Kitchener and Waterloo face in attempting to have the Ontario Provincial Police deal with their responsibilities out of the facilities in our community.

Waterloo region and the area of Brant, I certainly trust, are at the top of the list of facilities that are needed. I recognize that there has been construction of various police installations, particularly along and in connection with the highways as a more convenient operations point since much of the work deals with highway traffic matters, but I would not want this opportunity as well to pass, now that the matter has been raised by my colleague from Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, then to remind the Solicitor General again of the circumstances and the surroundings in which the detachment in Kitchener has to work.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Chairman, if I understand correctly, we’re on vote 1605, item 1, and while the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk may not note that organized crime is involved in this vote, I note by the information provided by the ministry that the intelligence branch is indeed funded under special services.

The stated objective of the intelligence branch is the investigation of organized crime subjects and their associates, and those investigations are made in relation to the activities of other groups actively engaged in major criminal activity in the province, and such investigations are conducted in conjunction with other law enforcement agencies on a provincial, national and international level.

The branch gathers, analyses and exchanges intelligence information through a network in which it has established itself as a vital link. So I put to the minister what I would say is a very clear question from my colleague from Dovercourt: From your description and the amount of money that you’re spending on it, it sounds as though you must have some idea as to what kind of organized crime it is that we’re talking about.

What kind of organized crime exists, for example, in Metropolitan Toronto area? How deeply rooted is it in our community? Can you, for example, clear up for me how big a holding organized crime has in apartment buildings in Metro Toronto? Is that the kind of information which the intelligence branch is collecting? I don’t know the answer to that. I assume that the Solicitor General does.

We hear rumours all the time. We have people come and talk to us. I get the impression that organized crime, as it applies to Metro Toronto, is heavily involved in the owning of apartment buildings, laundries, and bakeries. But we never get those answers.

Perhaps the minister would go over the reasons for not having a public inquiry into all of this, because what we get is just a series of questions and they become more anxious with time.

We don’t know how deeply rooted organized crime is in our community. We don’t know how serious a problem it is. We would like to know if we have reached a point in time where it is serious enough that we should drag it out into the open and do something with it -- put it to rest once and for all.

We don’t know whether as the Solicitor General has indicated in the paper, through connections with other police forces, both national and international, our police have all of this under control. That is why we are asking the questions. We would like to know specifically what kind of involvement organized crime has in Ontario. Is it gambling? Is it drugs? Is it apartment buildings? Is it bakeries? What is it? How deep is it?

Why on earth, finally, can’t we get this out in the open? Other jurisdictions have gone into open public hearings and they seem to be starting to put some of these people away. Heaven only knows, there isn’t a member in this House who wouldn’t support some good strong action to put away those people who are involved in organized crime in our community.

We can’t grope around in the dark forever. We have to have some answers from the government as to how deeply involved this business is and what it is going to do about it. I don’t think it is good enough for us to have estimates every year where we get the same answers back to us when we ask these questions, and just be told: “That’s fine. Just sit there. Organized crime is well under hand.” We need some facts to back up that statement.

If the Solicitor General tells us that it is well under hand, that he’s got it under control and so on, let him give us some facts to back that up. And let him give us some substantive reason as to why we shouldn’t have a full public inquiry into this business and get it out into the open.

Perhaps the minister could address himself to some of those specific questions that I have asked as to the extent -- at least in Metro Toronto if he doesn’t know of other jurisdictions; but at least in Metro Toronto how deeply involved is organized crime in our city? And what kinds of businesses are they into? Does he know that they have strong connections or that they own apartment buildings, as I suspect they do, bakeries and laundries and other businesses?

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to see that members on both sides of the House have similar thoughts in regard to organized crime. I would like to ask the minister some specific questions as well. I realize the difficulty that the minister has in dealing with this topic. I appreciate the fact that there has to be a certain amount of secrecy, I suppose, for want of a better word, in regard to the OPP’s intelligence unit in connection with the surveillance of organized crime.

The problem I have as a member of this House, however, is that for two or three years I have been talking about this matter, I have been pushed off with the response: “We have it under control. We know who the people are involved. It’s not as great a problem as you think. We can’t really give you any details because we don’t want to blow the investigations that are currently under way.”

That’s been going on for some time and, as my colleague has pointed out, we really don’t have any concept, at least as individual members of this House and certainly the public at large, as to just how deep the tentacles of organized crime go in the community of the province of Ontario.

[4:30]

I trust we won’t get into any argument about the definition of organized crime. The Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) in his statement of February 1, 1977, defined it as continuing illegal activity.

I understand there was a significant move a year or two ago, or perhaps even longer, when the motorcycle gangs took a large part of the drug trade away from other sections of organized crime which had been dealing with that particular business. We realize that when we talk about organized crime it’s not something as well organized in a sense of say the government of Ontario and so on; but there are various branches, various levels. As a matter of fact if they did operate like the government of Ontario we wouldn’t have organized crime, because they’d be out of business, there wouldn’t be any profit. Their own incompetence would do away with them.

About a year ago my secretary, knowing of my interest in this matter, gave me a book called the Canadian Connection which dealt primarily with the organized thug trade, mostly in the province of Quebec and the city of Montreal. But in that book there were many references to connections with Toronto, Hamilton and southern Ontario, by people involved in that particular aspect of organized crime.

As well there has been a well-researched

article in Quest magazine. I happened to speak to some of the people who were involved with that and they indicated that the problem was much deeper and much larger than in fact the

article indicated. We had the CBC, exposé I suppose is the word to use, in which there was apparently a lot of innuendo. Many people were smeared with guilt by association. But there seemed to be a steady pattern in all these books and articles and television documentaries that indicates that this problem is severe and that it reaches into almost every facet of life in the province.

My colleague was asking whether these people were involved in the ownership of apartment blocks or bakeries or pizza places, or in the trade labour unions. We had Justice Waisberg’s report some time ago, which seemed to indicate organized crime was involved with some of the labour unions. I think it’s really time we dealt with these matters and made the public aware.

This may be naive, but it’s naiveté based on ignorance because of lack of answers forthcoming from the government and those responsible for this particular responsibility.

The police are always complaining they don’t get enough support from the public at large. Here’s a case where the public doesn’t know what to do about it. If they have some information or some knowledge they might be prepared to come forward at a public hearing; on the other hand, of course, they may not.

I recall, we can’t say exactly “the disclosures,” that the former member from High Park (Mr. Shulman) made in the Legislature. With his usual unerring accuracy he was wrong on two or three occasions, which seemed, as usual, to wipe out any credibility he might have had on the things he was in fact right on; but there seemed to be enough there to indicate a very severe problem. I asked in January, through our research office, if any statistics were available on the number of convictions that were registered in the courts in the province of Ontario relating to organized crime.

As I understand this information was to be obtained from the Solicitor General and the Attorney General, and we were told at that time that neither the Attorney General nor the Solicitor General’s office kept track of convictions under the heading of being related to organized crime.

However, on February 1, again of 1977, in the Attorney General’s statement, the gist of which was that there was no need this time for a public inquiry, he says, and I quote: “The senior police officials also stated that they had no difficulty in identifying major crime figures, but the problem was the gathering of sufficient evidence to arrest and convict such individuals. However, they also pointed out that the efforts of the task force had led to the arrest and conviction of at least 16 known members of organized crime in the Toronto area alone.”

There’s a number of questions related to this and I’ll make them specific.

Number one is, does the minister have specific statistics as to the number of convictions related to organized crime in the province of Ontario? Can he indicate the extent and in what particular areas organized crime is deeply involved?

In light of his statements and answers to me in the last year or so, and the Attorney General’s statement that they in fact know who are the people involved in organized crime but the problem is in gathering evidence, in this day and age, Mr. Chairman -- I hate to suggest this -- but do perhaps the OPP and the RCMP require new or modified laws in order to give them the ability to gather the evidence to convict people involved in the organized crime field?

Those are three or four specifics, Mr. Chairman, but I would just like to add a further one along the lines that have been laid out. Why have the Solicitor General and the Attorney General not seen fit to hold a public inquiry into this matter? Mr. Cohen, I believe, is the name of the counsel for the crime commission in Quebec. He was quoted in some of the local newspapers back in January, stating that Ontario should in fact also hold such an inquiry; that it would be beneficial.

The only real answer we’ve had is that the senior law official’s advice to both yourself and the Attorney General is that it would serve no purpose at this stage. I would be more inclined to accept that advice if I really knew the extent to which we were speaking.

I’d like to ask the Solicitor General one