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

October 20, 1977

31st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L025 - Thu 20 Oct 1977 / Jeu 20 oct 1977

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

LAYOFF OF INCO WORKERS

VISITOR

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

DON JAIL REPORT

GRAIN CORN STABILIZATION PLAN

ORAL QUESTIONS

LAYOFF OF NICKEL WORKERS

EDWARDSBURGH LAND ASSEMBLY

HOME HEATING AND INSULATION

ANACONDA PLANT

LOSS OF DOCTORS

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

CNR CUTBACK

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TOPSOIL PRESERVATION ACT

ONTARIO GUARANTEED ANNUAL INCOME AMENDMENT ACT

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

PRIVATE ROAD ACCESS ACT

SMALL BUSINESS IN ONTARIO ACT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, since this is the first occasion in this Parliament during which the House will consider private members’ public business, I thought I should review for hon. members the procedure which will be used this afternoon and on future Thursdays.

As hon. members know, two items of business are scheduled for debate each Thursday afternoon. At the time of the commencement of such proceedings until 5:50 p.m., the time will be divided equally between the two orders. The mover of the motion will be allotted 20 minutes and may reserve any portion of that time for reply, provided he advises the Speaker beforehand of his intention to reserve time for reply just before the conclusion of the debate. All other members will be allowed a maximum of 10 minutes to speak.

When debate on both orders has been concluded, and if no petition adverse to a vote has been filed, I will put a question on the first order as follows: “Shall this question be put to the House? Any members opposed to the putting of the question must now rise.” If 20 members rise, the question will not be put. A recorded vote can be requested after the usual voice vote, if five members stand in their places in the usual way. I must also caution members that, in the event of a recorded vote, the division bell will ring for only five minutes whether or not the whips have reported.

I thought that would be of some help to private members who are unfamiliar with the procedure.

LAYOFF OF INCO WORKERS

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I stand on what I think is an appropriate point of order.

I would like on behalf of our party to request the unanimous consent of this House to suspend rule 30(a), which requires notification of two hours in writing to you, sir, before proceeding with what amounts to an emergency debate, a debate on a matter of urgent public importance, in order to seek from the assembly the unanimous approval of such a debate, the reading of which would be approximately as follows: A matter of urgent public importance namely, the disastrous economic blow which will strike the city of Sudbury, if the Inco layoffs of 2,800 people, announced today, are permitted to occur.

That debate, if the House would give unanimous consent, could proceed today at 4 o’clock, thereby granting the two hours which the parties normally have to prepare themselves for such an opportunity.

That is a submission that I make to you, sir, on a point of order.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, if I may rise on the same point of order, although we most certainly would want to use the time of the question period to discuss this very serious issue as well, we certainly also feel that it’s a very grave matter facing Sudbury and Ontario. We certainly would be prepared to give our consent and to join with the leader of the New Democratic Party in the comments he has just made for an emergency debate on this subject of the Sudbury basin and the layoffs.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, as the two hon. gentlemen have just said, about an hour ago Inco Metals Company in Toronto released to the press information concerning a large cutback on nickel production which will have, unfortunately, a substantial impact upon employment throughout that industry.

In an effort to obtain further particulars of this cutback, the reasons therefor and the precise impact it will have on the Sudbury community and on the Ontario economy, my colleagues the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough), the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier), the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. F. S. Miller) and I have made arrangements to meet later this afternoon with senior officials of Inco.

In addition, I have arranged to meet, as soon as it is possible for the gentleman to do so, with the director of district six of the United Steelworkers of America to obtain any pertinent information and concerns that the union may have on behalf of the employees of Inco.

I would add that the ministers I have mentioned and I are prepared to go to Sudbury to meet with municipal officials as well as local representatives of the employees and the company.

In view of the fact that these meetings have been arranged within the last half-hour for this afternoon, it might be difficult for the members of government to participate as fully in an emergency debate as we would like to.

Mr. Breithaupt: Might I ask a question of the minister with respect to this? How long has the minister known of this situation?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Since noon. A letter was delivered to me at about 10:30 this morning with the request that no information be released until the company had made a release. I think a similar letter was delivered to the leader of the NDP. As a result of that, we made immediate contact with officials of the company in order to try to arrange a meeting. The earliest time that we could arrange the meeting was for 3 o’clock this afternoon.

Mr. S. Smith: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker, Hansard will show that on Tuesday I declared in this very seat that there would be at least 1,500 people laid off by Inco on Thursday --

Mr. Speaker: That’s not a point of privilege.

Mr. S. Smith: -- and it’s shocking to think that the minister wouldn’t have talked to Inco before now.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Are you rising on a point of order?

Mr. Lewis: Yes, sir. Speaking to the point of privilege, perhaps ironically --

Mr. Speaker: It wasn’t a point of privilege.

Mr. Lewis: Oh. All right.

Some hon. members: Sit down.

Mr. Lewis: May I say, Mr. Speaker, speaking to the original point of order, that the time can be given some flexibility but obviously we could wish the ministers to be here to participate. If it has to be done this evening, it can be done this evening, but we don’t want to delay an emergency debate because, as the minister herself said, it has enormous implications for the economy of this province as a whole, and not simply for the Sudbury basin.

Mr. Speaker: In keeping with the standing order, the required notice wasn’t given and I can’t entertain the motion unless we have unanimous consent.

Mr. Lewis: That’s what I asked for.

Mr. Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent to proceed with the debate during the orders of the day?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, in view of the reasons given by the Minister of Labour, I think it is quite clear that we would require the opportunity to allow these meetings to proceed; therefore, we do not consent to the suspension of the rules.

Mr. Speaker: We do not have unanimous consent.

An hon. member: Shame.

Mr. Speaker: You can give notice of a debate.

Mr. Lewis: We will have it tomorrow morning.

Mr. Speaker: For tomorrow morning? That’s quite in order.

Hon. Mr. Welch: There is a whole evening on the budget debate.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: I would like to call hon. members’ attention to the fact that we have a visitor in the gallery, Mr. M. Raymond Garneau, member of the National Assembly of Quebec, the member for Jean-Talon riding in Quebec City, and he was the former Minister of Finance in the National Assembly of Quebec. I wish you would join me in welcoming him here this afternoon.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

DON JAIL REPORT

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I’m tabling today for the members’ information the results of an investigation into allegations published in the Toronto Sun regarding the activity of correctional officers in the Toronto jail.

I would like to summarize the findings by stating that:

1. There is no evidence of an organized vigilante group of correctional officers who use strong-arm tactics on inmates who cause trouble.

2. There is no evidence that officers use force to discipline inmates rather than providing written reports.

3. Five of the six senior officers whom the Sun’s informants alleged participated in inmate assaults were not involved in any way in the three incidents cited.

I am satisfied that in all three cases cited it was necessary for staff of the Toronto jail to restrain the men involved, and I have been informed by the Crown attorney that after reviewing the evidence he found no cause for the laying of criminal charges against the correctional officers.

I am going to table the full results of that report at this time.

Mrs. Campbell: What about the corrections report?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Pardon? I don’t have it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Questions are not permitted during ministerial statements. The hon. Minister of Agriculture and Food.

Mr. Conway: It is about rabies, is it, Bill?

GRAIN CORN STABILIZATION PLAN

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce the details of a provincial stabilization plan for grain corn to cover the crop year from September 1, 1977, to August 31, 1978.

The plan -- the first under the Farm Income Stabilization Act -- will stabilize the price of corn at 95 per cent of the market price averaged over the past five years. This is an additional five per cent above the federal stabilization level of 90 per cent.

Allowance will also be made for changes in current cash costs of production as compared to an average of costs over the past five years.

The plan will apply to all sales of grain corn through normal commercial channels -- sales to elevators, feed mills, grain dealers and commercial end users such as starch companies, distilleries, feed lots and livestock and poultry operations.

Corn grown on any farm in Ontario is eligible when sold directly to a livestock or poultry farmer for feeding to livestock as long as the sale is documented.

I’m very glad to see this plan in effect for the current crop year. Both Canada and the United States are expecting record corn crops and I believe our stabilization program will be very important in maintaining prices and farm incomes this year.

The maximum for which any one producer may claim stabilization payments is 39,000 bushels or 1,000 metric tonnes, the minimum being 400 bushels or 10 metric tonnes. Sales of seed and silage corn are not eligible.

Calculations will be based on a standard 15.5 per cent moisture. Purchases of corn or other feed will be converted to corn equivalents by the commission and deducted from corn sales to give the net quantity of corn eligible for stabilization payments.

To qualify, producers are required to submit enrolment forms which will be available from the ministry office in early November. Deadline for submission of the forms is January 16, 1978. Producers must also provide documentation of corn sales showing the names of the buyer and seller, date of sale, date and location of delivery, weight, moisture content and price.

[2:15]

The provincial corn stabilization plan is tied in with the federal plan so that producers who apply for the Ontario plan are automatically eligible for the federal plan. One claim form and a set of documents serve for both.

To give growers some idea of what the plan will do, we can take a look at last year’s crop. Producers would have received 11 cents per bushel, minus the enrolment fee.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LAYOFF OF NICKEL WORKERS

Mr. S. Smith: In the absence of the Premier (Mr. Davis), I would direct my question to the Minister of Natural Resources but he’s not here either. It could go to the Minister of Labour, I suppose, or the Treasurer. I will direct these questions to the Treasurer since they impinge on the economy.

I have a question about the announcement being made this afternoon by Inco of the massive layoff in the Sudbury area -- 2,200 hourly paid and staff employees permanently and a four-week layoff of the entire 14,000-man work force next summer. Can the Treasurer assure us that workers in Ontario are not bearing the complete brunt and basically the entire brunt of this layoff? Can he assure us that there are similar layoffs in Guatemala and Indonesia? Can he tell us the exact extent of those layoffs?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am afraid I can’t answer the second part of the question. I think that’s one of the matters which, hopefully, we will discuss this afternoon.

As to the first part of the question, I believe the statements this morning indicated that some 650 employees at Thompson, Manitoba, were also affected by a decision announced by the company this morning. It is also my understanding that the levels of production in the new two plants which were anticipated will not be reached. Whether or not there will be layoffs off shore or whether there simply will not be the growth in the labour force they had probably anticipated, going into production, I am not sure, but that’s something I think we want to explore with them.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, does the Treasurer find it acceptable that the profits made here in Ontario and in Canada, which are now going to finance the foreign production of nickel in Guatemala and Indonesia, should be used in such a manner as to help our competition rather than modernizing and updating our facilities? Will he accept layoffs of this kind in Ontario, if they are not happening proportionately in Indonesia and Guatemala under the same company?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: As I have indicated, that’s something we want to explore with them.

Mr. Germa: Could I ask the Treasurer, how it is that a major decision by this company could happen in Ontario without consultation with the government of Ontario?

Mr. Warner: They do whatever they please.

Mr. MacDonald: Stan Randall told us six years ago that we had that privilege.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for York South does not have the floor.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, there is no law on the books which would indicate that there should be consultation.

Mr. Deans: It might be good corporate citizenship.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am not sure, in view of the enormity of the problem facing the work force and facing the company, that consultation on Monday of this week would have produced anything more than consultation will this afternoon.

Obviously, the company is faced with a declining market and with price problems. I am not sure that it is within the competence of the government of Ontario, in some way, to stimulate worldwide nickel or copper prices or demand. Perhaps we would have appreciated knowing about it sooner. I am not sure that it would have been all that helpful.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Accepting the fact that the international market for nickel is very soft at the moment, can the Treasurer none the less address himself to whether he is prepared to sit back and watch the profits from Ontario finance our main competitors in Guatemala and Indonesia, and is he quite prepared to allow these layoffs to occur without some recognition that Ontario profits are now undermining Ontario jobs?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The investments which were made by Inco and, I assume, the borrowings which were made by Inco -- very heavy borrowings, and not just profits earned here over the years -- have in fact, I would believe in the case of both Guatemala and Indonesia, been substantially made. Whether in the present context they should or should not have been made, I think that is spilled milk.

Presumably the bills have been paid or must be paid in those two countries; so the investment by Inco is a fact. I don’t know that that’s going to be the most productive line of questioning this afternoon, although, as I have already indicated in response to the original question, we will certainly be in discussion with them -- and I don’t think this is all going to happen this afternoon.

I don’t think we are going to get all the answers, which either we need or they may want from us, in one meeting this afternoon. I think that should be made clear. We certainly will discuss with them, as I already indicated in reply to the first question, what impact or otherwise this is having on their offshore operations.

Mr. Laughren: A supplementary: In view of the fact that the unemployment rate in northeastern Ontario is already the highest in the province, will the Treasurer initiate meetings with the federal government with a view to establishing a TEIGA-DREE agreement for northeastern Ontario, with particular emphasis on the Sudbury basin? I draw particular attention to this because I wonder if the Treasurer is aware that the Minister of Labour announced just the day before yesterday in the Ministry of Labour estimates that there is no manpower co-ordinating program for northeastern Ontario.

Hon. B. Stephenson: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Nickel Belt has said that I said there was no manpower co-ordinating program for northeastern Ontario. The Manpower Co-ordinating Committee of this province is for the entire province. What I said was that there was no community employment strategy for the Sudbury region.

Mr. Deans: That’s even worse.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I would like to remind hon. members that was neither a point of privilege nor a point of order. You can stand up to correct a misstatement.

I might also just remind the hon. member for Scarborough West that he need not have risen earlier on a point of order. He can get up and ask for unanimous consent to do certain things in this House; that’s quite legitimate. But it is neither a point of order nor a point of privilege.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, do you mean I can rise, just as I am now, and say whatever I please at any time without a prefatory outburst?

Mr. Speaker: No, but you needn’t attribute it to either a point of order or a point of privilege. You need no excuse if you have a legitimate reason.

Mr. Lewis: Good.

Mr. Breithaupt: As long as it’s not a point of view.

Mr. MacDonald: Obviously the reason was very legitimate.

Mr. Bolan: Supplementary: Is this government trying to tell this House that it had no warning, no warning at all, of the impending doom about to strike the community of northern Ontario? And is the government trying to tell this House that, despite the warning it was supposed to have had, it did nothing whatever?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, to say that there have not been warnings, I think, would be wrong. Perhaps the hon. member is not aware -- certainly, other members of the House are aware -- that there have been layoffs and some cutting back at Falconbridge Nickel in the Sudbury basin.

Mr. Martel: National Steel in the Sudbury basin.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Those original layoffs were several months ago, I think. There were also layoffs at the Port Colborne works of Inco. Also, I think that anyone reading the newspapers for the last year -- the last six months, particularly -- would be aware of the fact that there is an over-supply of nickel in world markets and, I guess, of copper too.

Mr. Lewis: Deliberately manipulated.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The price of copper having risen some months ago came back down to the very low level of 50 cents on the LME. The writing on the wall was there for all to see.

An hon. member: You see, those corporate pirates do whatever they want.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: As recently as Monday, there was, to some extent, a warning when, as members are aware, in my quarterly forecast we substantially lowered the amount of money which we expect to receive from mining profits tax, which is directly related to the sale of nickel and copper and other ores in this province.

To say that we have not had any warning would, I think, really be putting your head in the sand.

Mr. Speaker: I’ll allow two more supplementaries on this. It’s been indicated there may be an opportunity at a later time. I’ll allow one more brief supplementary from the member for Ottawa Centre and the hon. member for Quinte.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: In view of these conditions which the Treasurer is now aware of and which his staff were, presumably, aware of before, has the government of Ontario held any meetings with Inco over the past year to discuss the effect on the economy, and on jobs, or was any such meeting sought after the layoffs were announced at the Port Colborne refinery?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think there have been ongoing discussions which I was not privy to; they were at the ministerial level with the Minister of Natural Resources. I know that there have been some communications at staff level.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Quinte. This will be the final supplementary.

Mr. O’Neil: Supplementary: To the Treasurer, and going along with Mr. Cassidy’s remarks: having sight of all of these forecasts of doom hanging over the mines, does he not feel it was the obligation of his government to have approached these companies to see why something couldn’t be done -- prior to this happening today?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Obviously, I very much regret what has happened today; we all do. But I think it would be wise to keep some sense of balance in searching for solutions to this problem.

Mr. Laughren: The minister is not unemployed.

Mr. Warner: Explain that to the people out of work.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think the people in the Sudbury basin could probably give the statistics -- which I don’t have in my hand -- better than I can. But the fact is that Canadian nickel and Canadian copper move into world markets, and when they are not moving into world markets the results are felt. Our own domestic consumption is very small. We have a depressed steel industry in the United States where, I understand, much of Inco’s production moves.

I would have to say in all frankness that it is beyond the capability of members on this side of the House -- and I suspect on either side of the House -- to do something about, for example, a depressed steel industry in the United States or the lack of demand for nickel or copper in international markets.

[2:30]

Mr. Lewis: Over the years you gave them preferential treatment.

Mr. Foulds: It is a dogmatic straitjacket.

Mr. S. Smith: I will ask another question of the Treasurer on this topic, Mr. Speaker.

During these discussions with the various companies involved, has the Treasurer indicated a readiness to make sure that Ontario’s tax and royalty structure is of such a nature as not to impede Ontario’s competitiveness with competing jurisdictions in which these same companies operate?

Mr. Laughren: Too liberal.

Mr. Lewis: Give them more exemptions, more concessions; give away the whole basin.

Mr. Laughren: They can’t give away any more. They have tried.

Mr. S. Smith: Is the Treasurer willing, in fact, to create a tax structure which will be such as to make certain that the tax system itself is not impeding Ontario’s competitiveness as a site for nickel operations?

Mr. MacDonald: There is nothing left to give them.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cassidy: The conspiracy of the two of you.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I don’t have to give Inco that assurance. The fact is there in the figures which were tabled in this House on Monday that profits are substantially reduced, and without breaking out that downward revision -- to $40 million from a peak in 1975 of $150 million -- without breaking that out between the parts of the industry, most of that tax is paid by relatively few companies.

The fact is that it is a mining profits tax, and when there isn’t a profit and the ore is not being sold then the tax is not paid. It would be obvious to most of us that precisely the purpose of that tax was, in fact, fully laid out for all to see on Monday. When there is a depressed situation the tax is not payable. We do not have a royalty. Perhaps the member is not aware that we do not have royalties in this province.

I think it has to be said -- and members from the basin will be better aware of this than I -- that due to one good feature, and there are a number, but the good feature of our Ontario mining tax, despite the fact that nickel and copper in particular were not moving but were merely going into inventory -- and this has been going on now for over a year -- one of the benefits of the Ontario mining tax as opposed to a royalty has been at work, and the taxes have not been paid.

I suspect what the company will tell us this afternoon is that there comes a point when it can no longer afford -- even though it is not being taxed by way of royalty or profits tax -- it cannot go on adding to an inventory which is not moving out.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, I accept the Treasurer’s point that his graduated tax is better than a royalty, but does the Treasurer not accept that in a cyclical industry like the mining industry taxing the companies heavily in a graduated method when they do well leaves them with insufficient reserves to reinvest in the company to tide them over the more difficult times? Is he prepared to make sure -- I simply ask this, Mr. Speaker -- that our tax system is not acting as a disincentive, encouraging investment to leave the country and to go to places like Indonesia and Guatemala?

Mr. MacDonald: Oh go on. Join the Japanese conspiracy.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, it will continue to be the policy of this government --

Mr. Laughren: Why doesn’t one of you cross the floor?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am not about to agree with the hon. leader. It will continue to be the policy of this government that we will, insofar as possible, design our tax system in the resource area to encourage employment, yes, in the mining industry, but also in that system to do our best to encourage, to credit, to benefit those companies which will upgrade those resources within Canada.

I think that is a very fundamental decision which we are going to have to make in the next few years in this country, as to whether our ambition in life is simply to bring ore out of the ground and ship it out of the country.

Mr. Martel: Now you are talking. We have been talking to you about that for years. It falls on deaf ears.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The present Ontario mining tax very much --

Ms. Gigantes: What are you waiting for?

Mr. Lewis: You created this problem.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Treasurer is the only member who has the floor.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The present Ontario mining tax is designed to stimulate and to encourage the further processing and refining and fabricating of Canadian ores within Canada, and that remains our commitment. Those who would say -- and there are those from Inco and from the mining industry who have said -- simply that our structure of tax is too high forget about the incentives which are provided to reduce that tax for further refining and processing within Canada.

Mr. Warner: Corporate welfare.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- three years old, and which at the time of its passage was generally agreed, to my recollection, as being a fair system and a system which would encourage the upgrading of Canadian raw materials within Canada. I, for one, don’t want to lose sight of that objective. But having said that, we are taking a look at the Act.

Mr. MacDonald: Did you talk to Jim Gillies?

Mr. Martel: Supplementary: Has the minister considered the possibility of introducing any of the recommendations of the select committee of this Legislature, which was led by the former Speaker, which called for a 50 per cent takeover of the mining industry and the processing and the manufacturing of those raw materials here in Canada, and in Ontario in particular, as opposed to the present lack of government policy?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I have looked at those recommendations. I am sure my colleagues have looked at those recommendations --

Mr. Martel: Each of them signed them.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- which called for nationalization or part nationalization or part purchase of Canadian resource industries.

Mr. Lewis: Right.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We reject those.

Mr. Lewis: Right -- the Tories signed it.

Mr. Martel: You wrote the report.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Grey-Bruce with a supplementary.

Mr. Martel: Don’t give us that nonsense.

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the minister. The reverse side of the picture is against the tax profits. That’s gone by the board. I think that the government should be able to ascertain today, or shortly, the magnitude of the stockpiling, the extent of the inventory, to show these 2,800 people how far down the road we are looking at -- three or four months? a year, or two years? -- before this inventory is depleted and when they can go back to work. But as always, the government has no standby plan and now it is going to lean on the feds for the answers. I think it’s time it had some plans of its own.

Mr. Speaker: What is your question?

Mrs. Campbell: The answer is no.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, this may surprise you but the questions which my friend suggested might be asked of the company this afternoon are among those very questions which I and my colleagues I think will be asking this afternoon.

Mr. Peterson: Are you going to that meeting? We will come with you.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet though, I have to draw attention to the fact that just four or five months have gone by since most of us were out on the hustings. During that short time, the short list of drug companies, car insurance and natural gas companies has today been added to by taking over the natural resource companies and the mines. Stand up and show your colours.

Mr. MacDonald: Out of order, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We just have a short list. That’s three sectors.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sudbury with a supplementary.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We just have a short list.

An hon. member: Pretty limp.

An hon. member: You are on the way down, Darcy.

Mr. Sargent: No wonder you guys are in trouble over there.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I recognize the hon. member for Sudbury.

Mr. Germa: Supplementary: Does the government of Ontario have a position to put to the International Nickel Company this afternoon and, if so, what the hell is that position?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: If we had a position to put before International Nickel, hopefully, that position would be based on a maximum appreciation insofar as that is possible of the facts and the figures, some of which have been suggested as reasonable questions by my friend from Grey-Bruce. If we had all those facts and figures, then we obviously would not find it necessary to meet with the company and would have been prepared for an emergency debate this afternoon.

Mr. MacDonald: Is the member for Grey-Bruce your friend now?

Mr. Lewis: Your friend from Grey-Bruce? You haven’t called him a friend in 10 years.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Obviously the answer to the question at this moment is no.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I beg your indulgence.

Mr. Speaker: Two more brief supplementaries from the members for Hamilton West and Scarborough West. We’ve spent 26 minutes on this one question and it’s not giving other members an opportunity.

Mr. Germa: You are wiping out a city, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. S. Smith: With your indulgence, a very brief question: Would the Treasurer consider, in view of the gravity of the situation, including representatives of the two opposition parties -- I would suggest the two leaders -- to attend at his meeting with Inco this afternoon, so that we can all be well prepared for the debate which will take place in this House tomorrow?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am sure that the Minister of Labour and others will report to the House after these meetings. I’m quite sure that those whom we will meet with will be quite prepared to meet with members of the official opposition or with the members of the third party. My answer would be no. This is a meeting which is being arranged between the company and the government in the discharge of our responsibilities. I don’t think we would be prepared to add to it.

Mr. Laughren: Cosier.

Mr. Cassidy: I think he is proposing a coalition.

Mr. Speaker: Is this a supplementary?

Mr. Lewis: No, I’ll ask a new question on the subject.

Mr. Speaker: On the same topic?

Mr. Lewis: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: In fairness to other members of the House, it seems almost evident we’re going to have a full ranging debate on this in the not-too-distant future, and it’s not giving other members an opportunity to ask their own questions.

Mr. MacDonald: He has the right to use his time as he sees fit.

Mr. Speaker: You can proceed, but I just say leave some time for private members.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, regardless of the questions I ask I hope there will be the same time left. That doesn’t bear on the quality of the questions.

I’d like to redirect, if I could, on this issue to the Minister of Northern Affairs, since as one of the architects of this decision he will understand a little better perhaps what preceded it. May I ask him that when he is meeting with the International Nickel Company this afternoon he might indicate to them that the government will disallow the special exemptions that have been granted until the year 1985, open-ended in amount, to process and refine abroad, unless they do something to maintain that work force in Sudbury?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I don’t consider that a question.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, since it was under his aegis as the Minister of Natural Resources, under

section 131 of the Mining Act, the minister granted exemptions to Inco until December, 1985, in two instances, to process and refine abroad, would he like to indicate whether he will use that special privilege granted to them as a negotiating point to see if we cannot manage to persuade them of their obligation to the Canadian work force?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I think it’s fair to say that in our discussions with Inco, which will start this afternoon, all areas affecting the Sudbury basin and that particular company will be carefully examined. The specific point to which the hon. member refers, I’m sure he realizes, lies with the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. F. S. Miller).

Mr. Lewis: Wipe your hands of it, eh?

Mr. Laughren: When the minister is discussing this with International Nickel, will he also in collaboration with his colleagues in the cabinet take a look at

section 113 of the Mining Act, under which he makes exemptions, so that we no longer grant exemptions to companies such as Inco and Falconbridge to ship ore elsewhere, because those are jobs we’re shipping out?

[2:45]

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I think the hon. member is fully aware of, and the Treasurer has made reference to, the processing allowances that have been allowed the major companies to encourage the further processing of those ores in northern Ontario.

Mr. Laughren: It hasn’t worked.

Mr. Lewis: Then you give them exemptions.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Some companies have taken advantage of that particular processing allowance, such as Texasgulf, as the hon. member well knows, in the Timmins area.

Mr. Lewis: But not Inco and Falconbridge.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The government’s intention is to push it that particular way --

Mr. Cassidy: You haven’t shown that.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- and certainly we’ll discuss all those aspects

Mr. MacDonald: They thumb their noses at you.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Oh, no, they don’t.

Mr. Lewis: Just a quick supplementary: When the minister granted those exemptions from the legislation which was supposed to make sure that things like this never did happen in the Sudbury basin, did he know that the investment in Indonesia would be $1 billion, in New Caledonia almost $2 billion, in Guatemala almost half a billion? Was the minister aware of the amount of money that was going to other jurisdictions as our work force was atrophying?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I think in granting those particular exemptions all aspects of the operation are looked at very, very carefully.

Mr. Laughren: Did you know that?

Mr. Warner: So you did know it.

Mr. McClellan: So you did know.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The immediate, the short-term and the long-term interests of our particular province are carefully considered.

Mr. Martel: I wanted to ask a supplementary: Has it ever dawned on the government that when these corporations are getting these concessions and expanding their operations in places such as Norway, that it’s going to be detrimental to the Canadian work force? Does it ever dawn on the government?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Certainly it has, Mr. Speaker, and I think the hon. members are being --

Mr. MacDonald: But you don’t do anything about it.

Mr. Martel: You continue to grant exemptions.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- a little naive, really, in some of their arguments here this afternoon --

Mr. Lupusella: You carry on the same policy.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- with regard to exemptions under

section 113.

Mr. Martel: Falconbridge.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The members are being naive and they’re not facing the facts, the reasons why those exemptions were given --

Mr. Martel: Falconbridge? You gave them the 1975 grant.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- to keep those jobs going on an ongoing basis --

Mr. Laughren: Tell us about Falconbridge.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- on a short-term and long-term basis.

Mr. Warner: You’re a disaster.

Mr. Laughren: Do you know any workers, Leo?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Oh, short-sighted. Boy!

Mr. Lewis: Mr.

Speaker, I have a second question on the same subject to the Minister of Labour, if I may: Since when my colleague mentioned the potential layoffs to her yesterday morning in committee she was not aware of them at the time, does she now see their full extent, and since implicit in the statement today is something really even more ominous -- they say, “Further production cutbacks may prove necessary and could occur in the first half of 1978,” which could mean many, many more men out of work -- is the minister prepared to demand by way of legislation now for all larger companies in Ontario that advance discussion be entered into with government before any such calamitous decision is taken?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, much as it would be desirable and I would hope that the intentions of most large institutions would be to provide us with advance information, I suppose that I would have to say at this point that I am not prepared to introduce such legislation.

I believe that we can ask for this kind of co-operation from responsible companies --

Mr. Lewis: They’re not responsible.

Mr. MacDonald: They are not responsible. They didn’t give it to you.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- and I believe, sir, that responsible companies will give us that kind of co-operative action.

Mr. McClellan: Where are they?

Hon. B. Stephenson: If it is necessary to lean vigorously upon them in order to attempt to get that kind of information, I’m prepared to do that.

Mr. MacDonald: After the fact.

Hon. B. Stephenson: But to legislate that kind of requirement in what is supposed to be a relatively free economy, I think, would be entirely counter to the democratic process.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, thank you. Free for the workers who are on the receiving end. How free is it for the worker?

Mr. Foulds: I wonder if the Minister of Labour could indicate to us and lean on Inco this afternoon to find out if the further production cutbacks will affect Inco’s mine at Shebandowan in Ontario?

Hon. B. Stephenson: We shall be attempting, Mr. Speaker, to gather all of the information which we can, not only about this immediate situation but projections for at least the next year and longer.

Mr. Martel: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary, the hon. member for Sudbury East.

Mr. Martel: Since we’re talking about such responsible companies as Falconbridge, which laid off a month after the vacation time -- that’s responsibility -- my supplementary question is: Is the minister prepared to introduce by legislation supplementary unemployment benefits similar to the agreement worked out between the United Auto Workers and the auto producers where, to force more rationalization of production, the company must establish a fund and if layoffs occur, the workers receive in addition to their unemployment insurance benefits a sum of 30 per cent, bringing them to roughly 95 per cent of their wages during the lifetime of the layoff?

And instead of giving away our shirt we penalize them for a change and make them rationalize their production.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I would have to say that I am not prepared to legislate such action right at the moment.

Mr. Lewis: No. The minister is not prepared to do anything.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I am prepared to look at it, because it might be worthwhile to consider introducing such legislation if and when the price of nickel rises above the devastatingly low price that it is right now. But to introduce such legislation at the moment I think would probably strap not only the employees who would be receiving benefits but all of the others who are employed by that company who are continuing to work.

Mr. Martel: Who overproduced?

EDWARDSBURGH LAND ASSEMBLY

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Treasurer. In the matter of the Edwardsburgh land assembly, I am wondering whether the Treasurer, as senior provincial planner, agrees with his colleague from Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling) and would support the immediate release of any and all information respective to and about the initial assembly of that particular land bank and now, particularly, the Dillon report on the alleged disposition of that particular assembly?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, the report was not commissioned by me. It was commissioned elsewhere. It is under consideration in the Resources Development secretariat, as I understand it. Whether they have completed it or not, I don’t know. So I’m not in a position to agree, as much as I would like to, with the very fine member for Carleton-Grenville. That is not my particular responsibility.

Mr. Conway: Supplementary: In terms of the Treasurer’s regional priorities budget, given the fact this particular land assembly was offered to the people of eastern Ontario as a showcase for the future industrial development of eastern Ontario, and given the apparent and almost imminent collapse of that showcase I wonder what the minister now has to offer by way of surrogate to the people of eastern Ontario in replacement for this showcase?

Mr. Breithaupt: It is called spilled milk.

Mr. Lewis: Trees.

Mr. Kerrio: A Minister for Eastern Ontario.

HOME HEATING AND INSULATION

Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Energy. In view of the fact that the provincial government has postponed the Ontario home insolation program, in view of the fact that the federal home insulation program applies only to homes constructed before 1921, and in view of the fact that there are virtually no homes in northern Ontario constructed prior to 1921, would the minister request the federal government to apply different time-of-construction criteria to northern Ontario in its programs?

Mr. Riddell: Leave it all up to the feds.

Mr. Pope: What has been suggested by the Liberals?

Interjections.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Would you call them to order, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: If we could have some order, we might get an answer.

Interjections.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: That was an excellent question, Mr. Speaker. That very point was one of the concerns we had in my ministry in connection with the federal program that was unilaterally designed and announced.

At the staff level we did request that other factors be taken into consideration, such as regional differences, different types of construction in different parts of Ontario and the climatic conditions that the hon. member speaks of. These are considerations that we were concerned with. I may say also that other provinces across Canada were concerned with this type of problem in the present federal program. We will work towards a program, certainly at the federal level, which would take into consideration differences in regions and from province to province.

Mr. Conway: What about your election promise?

Mr. Kerrio: Have you got a by-election down there?

Mr. Epp: Supplementary: Since it costs more in capital expansion of Hydro to provide an additional megawatt of power than it costs in insulation to save one megawatt of power, how can the minister possibly claim that his decision to scrap the insulation program will save money?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: At no time did I suggest that the deferral of the proposed plan, the fuel-savers plan, would save money on the part of the consumers. What I was referring to was the budgetary limitation under which I find myself.

I would also direct the member’s attention to the fact that on the whole there is great emphasis at the present time in terms of the residential consumer insulating his home. The industry has mentioned that there is quite a run on insulation and many people foresee shortages in terms of insulation. There’s no suggestion that there be less saving on the part of the residential home owner. On the contrary, I encourage the residential home owner to --

Mr. Foulds: Except in a practical way.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: -- insulate, but I don’t think there are that many houses across Ontario which are heated electrically that it would have a significant impact on the capital expansion program of Ontario Hydro.

Mr. Samis: Supplementary: Since the minister was aware of the economic forecast, could he tell us why he promised this program in the first place to the people of Ontario in the midst of the election campaign, with what degree of seriousness we should even take him --

An hon. member: None at all.

Mr. Samis: -- and can he give the home owners of Ontario any idea if they can expect to receive any consideration in the future if they seek to insulate their homes without waiting for the federal program to apply to them personally?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, may I correct the hon. member? There was no promise made by me in connection with this program. May I say that the suggestion --

Mr. Samis: May 18.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Just a minute, may I say that the suggestion --

Mr. Cassidy: There was no promise?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: -- of this program was revealed by me during the last federal-provincial conference on oil and gas pricing, and the reason I made mention of the fact that we were considering this program within our ministry --

Mr. Cassidy: Was to win votes.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: -- was the fact that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources had indicated that the federal government was going to announce a $1.5 billion insulation program. This came without consultation with the provincial ministers.

Mr. Samis: Why did you promise it?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: So at that very point I made mention of the provincial initiatives in terms of conservation and insulation in particular --

Mr. Samis: Why did you promise it?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: -- hoping that the federal program, if it was developed, would take into consideration the program or the proposal that my ministry had under way.

Mr. Samis: It didn’t.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I admit that was revealed prematurely by me, but only so that that point could be taken into consideration.

Mr. Samis: Why did you promise this?

Mr. Cassidy: So you could win votes.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, to refresh the memories of the opposition, that was well --

Mr. Warner: Speaking of insulation, you should be stuffed somewhere.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: -- before any election was ever thought of.

Mr. Speaker: We don’t want a speech. We just want an answer to the question.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: If you would like a longer answer, I can give you a longer answer.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of privilege, to correct a misstatement, the announcement of the fuel-savers loan program was May 18, 1977.

Mr. Speaker: There is no privilege abrogated. That is not a point of privilege.

Mr. Lewis: Of course it is. There was a misstatement.

Mr. Speaker: It’s not a point of privilege.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary: To show the insanity of the whole operation over there, the minister decries the fact that he doesn’t have the $5 million in his budget to do the home insulation program -- that’s his motivation there -- but he is --

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Sargent: -- thank you -- but he is asking us to spend $1 billion with Denison Mines for --

Mr. Speaker: I still don’t hear your question.

Mr. Sargent: -- the future of uranium. How does he relate $1 billion for uranium and he can’t spend $5 million for insulation? It’s insanity.

Hon. B. Stephenson: What is insanity? What on earth is he talking about, does he know?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I think there must be some confusion in the mind of the member, because --

Hon. B. Stephenson: In the mind?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: -- pardon the expression -- because I really don’t relate to that type of question.

Mr. Sargent: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing out of order.

Mr. Sargent: Doesn’t the minister know he is spending $1 billion on uranium now?

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing out of order here. The minister can answer in any way he chooses. Does the minister have an answer?

Hon. B. Stephenson: He did.

[3:00]

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I was wondering if the member had a question.

Mr. Speaker: A new question, the hon. member for Lakeshore.

ANACONDA PLANT

Mr. Lawlor: My God, it’s difficult to get in, Mr. Speaker.

To the Minister of Labour: I spoke to her the other day about the real possibility of a complete closing down of the Anaconda plant in New Toronto. Since that time, what thoughts has she had as to what she may do to preserve the 875 jobs involved in this plant and the whole industry itself in this country?

Mr. MacDonald: Your system is collapsing around you.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Oh, I think not. I think capitalism is probably not only alive and flourishing, but will make a rapid recovery.

Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the opposition’s attacks upon capitalism, in order to capitalize upon the problems which are presently facing the people of Ontario, I should like to respond to the question which the hon. member for Lakeshore posed me.

Mr. Speaker: I wish you would.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That company specifically is one that has been investigated -- the problem has been investigated -- by both the Ministry of Industry and Tourism and by officials within my ministry. I think it would be fair to say that the concerns are perhaps premature at this point, but nonetheless because the concerns are there, discussions are being held between the company and the officials of Industry and Tourism.

They are also involving other levels of government in those discussions, and we are attempting to work with the union in that area to see, if indeed there are problems, if there are some ways in which we can head off in a preventive kind of way the potential problems. But it is my understanding that the owners of the company do have several potential buyers for the company.

The problem which was raised in estimates yesterday is being explored. We have not found the entire answer to that one as yet, but when it is found we shall see what we can do to resolve it as well.

Mr. S. Smith: Has she got an allowance for fabrication in Ontario?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Oh, Stuart, I am insulted.

LOSS OF DOCTORS

Mr. Johnson: A question to the Minister of Health: In today’s edition of the Toronto Sun the headline screams “Report Slaps Doctors.” My question is, in view of the fact that so many doctors are leaving or planning to leave Ontario and relocate in Texas, Arizona, or other southern states, with the financial assistance of that state, and since headlines such as this are encouraging them to decide to leave, would his ministry undertake to release a report indicating the number of doctors we have lost in the past year? Secondly, would his ministry also issue a statement of support for the many truly fine dedicated doctors that we have in this province and try to encourage them to remain here?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I’ll be glad to table such a report. There is one just being completed that I asked for several months ago and which has been prepared based on discussions with the college and various other sources, including the United States immigration service.

I must say that I get a little concerned about some of these reports and the way that they are perhaps overblown. That particular report, as I read the press release -- I haven’t had a chance to read the report by this Dr. Morgan -- but as I flipped through the press release quickly yesterday, what he seemed to be saying was -- and I think that this is a truism now -- the fact that you spend more money on health care doesn’t mean you are going to have a healthier society. That seemed to be one of the crucial points, or focuses if you will, of this report by Dr. Morgan.

I accept that. I don’t know that I can accept that that should be interpreted by some headline writer as being a slap at doctors. I will certainly be glad to table such figures, and I will be glad to comment further on it at that time.

Mr. Kerrio: Supplementary: Is the minister aware of the fact that there is a task force of doctors touring the United States, anti-OHIP, telling them that if they incorporate some of the laws that we have in OHIP in Ontario they will be moving to the States?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It is not a task force. I think it is in fact, if anything, a self-appointed group of three doctors who are going through the United States, I believe at the invitation of the American Medical Association. Their comments are not anti-OHIP. Their comments tend to be saying, in effect, they propose that the United States establish a system of health care such as we had pre-OHIP, which was the day of OMSIP, the private insurers and so forth.

I’m not aware that any of the three have said they’re going there. I have to tell the member that about three weeks ago, my senior staff and I spent a day with the Hon. Joseph Califano, the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare of the United States. My impression and my recollection of that meeting were that he was saying that the United States has enough doctors, thank you, and they may very well themselves in the not-too-distant future be putting on the kind of immigration controls which this country, at the request -- in fact, the demand -- of my predecessor, now Minister of Natural Resources, imposed in the last two years.

There is one other thing I should say. It seems that in all these reports it comes down to dollars. There are certain factors in states like Arizona and Texas with which we cannot compete. First of all, the current doctor-patient ratio in the state of Texas, for instance, is about one to 1,300. In Ontario today it’s about one to 560 or 570. Obviously, given that disparity, it’s not that difficult to establish a practice in the state of Texas today.

Secondly, the state of Texas doesn’t have an income tax. We do. Thirdly, the overall income tax rate of the government of the United States is lower than that of the Dominion of Canada.

Mr. Peterson: Do you blame the Treasurer for all of this?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: And the list goes on and on. If it’s strictly dollars and one wants to talk about a comparison with the state of Texas, we can’t compete. We won’t try.

Mr. Ziemba: Supplementary. Would the minister be in favour of encouraging US doctors, who might want to trade places with the Canadian doctors who are going there, and who might want to work under our medicare scheme, to get away from the high premiums of malpractice insurance that are being levied there?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Let’s not bring that here.

Mr. Peterson: We don’t need more doctors. We have more doctors than hydro workers.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As a matter of fact and this will come out in the figures I will table -- it is not entirely a one-way movement. In fact, I’d have to say too, as a preliminary comment, that it cannot be considered to be an exodus.

Mr. Peterson: We are exporting doctors and importing hydro workers.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It is not a one-way movement We get a great many doctors coming into Ontario from the United States and from other provinces. I don’t think it’s a matter of encouraging at all, although I should say that the ones who do come in, come in to fairly specialized positions, where there is not a Canadian available, and we check all those out to ensure that.

I have no intention of sending my deputy minister or the head of OHIP or anybody else down to the states to recruit doctors, none at all.

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

Hon. Mr. Norton: I believe it to be a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I stand to have it reclassified by yourself if you should see fit.

Mr. Breithaupt: He will.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I have just recently been delivered a copy of a disturbingly misleading Canadian Press wire story which has caused me to rise on this point of privilege, because I would like to assure my colleagues on both sides of this House that the implication in the story is inaccurate and misleading.

I presume that the story can only have been based upon an interview, a brief one, which I had yesterday in the corridors of this Legislature with a particular female reporter from the Toronto Globe and Mail --

Mr. Lewis: I am glad you identified the sex for us. It is very helpful.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- and the matter under suggestion -- I will name the person if it should clarify it for any other female reporter from that newspaper. It’s the one and only Miss Barbara Yaffe.

I will read, Mr. Speaker, the first paragraph of the story. It says, “Keith Norton, the Ontario minister of social services, says he is in favour of allowing provinces to spend federal dollars earmarked for social services on roads, bridges and other priorities.”

Mr. Lewis: That was in the story this morning in the Globe.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I didn’t see the story this morning in the Globe. I apologize for having not raised it at that time.

Mr. Lewis: It seemed perfectly in order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member for Scarborough Centre just keep quiet.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Scarborough West, I’m sorry. I could never accuse the member for Scarborough West to be in the centre of anything except turmoil.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, if I might conclude. My concern is that this story is, as I have suggested misleading. It is a perversion and distortion of the truth as it relates to what I said in this building yesterday. I did, in the course of that discussion, indicate that I favoured the kind of flexibility that would be permitted under a block-funding proposal to plan for the needs of the residents of this province.

Mr. Lewis: It is exactly the same thing.

Mr. McClellan: It is exactly the same thing.

Hon. Mr. Norton: But at no time in that conversation was there any implication on my part that I supported, as this story suggests, the spending of money earmarked for social services in this province on roads or any other kind of priorities. I want to assure my colleagues that is not the case, and it will not be the case as long as I am in the office that I hold at the present time.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Norton: If it is necessary, in order to avoid this kind of perversion of the truth, that I terminate communication with that particular reporter, I will. And if my colleagues hear of that in the near future, I hope they will understand what has motivated it.

Mr. Speaker: I consider that a legitimate point of privilege.

Mr. Lewis: What about male reporters?

Mr. Sargent: That’s the only thing you guys have got to do all day.

CNR CUTBACK

Mr. Bolan: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Northern Affairs.

In view of the fact that the minister announced at the end of September that the Northlander rail passenger service, which is operated by the Ontario Northland railway, would have to cut back on its services after October 30 because of an anticipated deficit of $2 million at the end of its first year of operation, is it still his ministry’s intention to proceed with the cutback? How can the minister possibly justify a cutback in services after only five months of operation?

Some hon. members: Shame.

An hon. member: What a northern minister.

Mr. Lewis: He is paranoid. I told the minister he would regret it.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Not as much as you.

Mr. Speaker: There is too much undercurrent of noise in the chamber. Will you tone it down, please?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The Northlander trains were placed in operation on June 8 of this year on an experimental basis. I think the experiment was for at least one train to operate into the northeast. Two trains were added on a daily basis -- one into Timmins and one into North Bay -- in addition to the conventional train that was in place.

There have been some substantial losses in that particular experiment to date, mainly because of a lack of federal government subsidy on the passenger train service.

Mr. Conway: Such national unity.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The major rail lines -- the CPR and the CNR -- do obtain those kind of subsidies. My colleague, the Minister of Transportation and Communications, is in contact with the federal authorities in the hope of gaining some assistance in those losses, through the same formula that applies to other major railways in this country. Also, of course, to negotiate a better understanding with regard to the cost of operating those trains on the lines owned and operated by the CNR. As the member for North Bay knows, they are assessing us at $13 a mile for operating those particular trains into the northeast and that, too, is adding to our burden.

Mr. Conway: Do something about it.

Mr. Pope: Talk to your friends in Ottawa.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I might say to the hon. member that there has been a further consideration given to this experiment. While the discussions are going on with my colleague and the federal authorities, there will be an extension of the Northlander operation to the service into the northeast -- hopefully, to the end of this year.

Mr. Bolan: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: If it is very brief I will except it. We have time for only one more question.

Mr. Bolan: It is very brief, Mr. Speaker. Why does the minister consider a deficit of $2 million excessive for the provision of a rail passenger service to northern Ontario, when this government subsidizes other transportation into remote areas of northern Ontario -- such as the GO train and norOntario -- to much vaster sums than $2 million?

Mr. Conway: The Tories don’t like the north.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Carleton East with a brief question -- hopefully.

[3:15]

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

Ms. Gigantes: A question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, Mr. Speaker: Given that it is now a year since his predecessor announced the creation of the Ontario residential condominium study group, can he tell us first of all when he expects the study group report; and second, when the owners of more than 100,000 condominium units in Ontario can expect some legislative reform?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I am expecting the copy of the report to be submitted to me some time within the next four to eight weeks, depending on printing. That’s all that is holding it up at the present time, I believe.

Mr. Breaugh: That’s what was said in August.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s what was said in June.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As soon as I have it I will make it public immediately. I would hope discussions ensue shortly thereafter and, depending on how they go, I would hope to have something some time early next year, but we’ll have to see how the public discussion goes --

Ms. Gigantes: Public discussion?

Mr. Breaugh: Is the minister going to bring Darwin back on another task force?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The report is going to be made public. Obviously there will be discussion ensuing over the eight, ten or twelve weeks after it becomes public. I hope that we can get a handle on those recommendations and the response to them, and have something some time early next year.

Ms. Gigantes: That means another year.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, it doesn’t mean another year.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TOPSOIL PRESERVATION ACT

Hon. W. Newman moved first reading of Bill 72,

An Act to preserve Topsoil in Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Lewis: That’s what they are going to use the social service money for -- to pay for the topsoil.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Over my dead body.

Mr. Foulds: Is this to prevent the drought?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, this bill is permissive legislation to allow the municipalities of the province of Ontario to pass the necessary municipal bylaws for the control and removal of topsoil in the municipalities of the province.

ONTARIO GUARANTEED ANNUAL INCOME AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener moved first reading of Bill 73,

An Act to amend the Ontario Guaranteed Annual Income Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Conway: Did they like the minister at Carleton yesterday? How was the national unity? Did she give the French a good go?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: Mr. Speaker, effective on July 1 of this year the federal government amended the Old Age Security Act to change the residency rules for the old age security pension to enable the payment of a partial pension to persons who had not resided in Canada long enough to qualify for a full pension. The amendments to the Ontario Guaranteed Annual Income Act bring Ontario’s legislation into line with the federal legislation.

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Hon. Mr. Welch: Before the orders of the day, Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the answers to questions 18 and 21 standing on the notice paper as well as the answer to question 20.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

PRIVATE ROAD ACCESS ACT

Mr. Maeck moved second reading of Bill 63,

An Act respecting Motor Vehicle Access to Property by Private Road.

Mr. Maeck: In rising to speak to my bill,

An Act respecting Motor Vehicle Access to Property by Private Road. I can’t help commenting a little bit on the fact that my name was drawn first both last year and this year in the draw. I think I would like to inform you, Mr. Speaker, that in fairness to other members I don’t intend to put my name in the next time around to give everybody a fair chance.

Mr. Ruston: Buy Wintario tickets, Lorne.

Mr. Maeck: I must say it was probably more embarrassing to the Clerk who drew the name than it was to me.

Mr. Foulds: Anything can happen. They didn’t make you a cabinet minister, hang in there.

Mr. Maeck: Luckily we did have the media present so that everybody knows it was honest and fair. However, I will step down and let someone else have a chance at the first ballot.

With regard to my bill, I would first like to say that the problem I seek to remedy was brought to my attention by a number of people in my own constituency. I have subsequently found that the problem is really quite widespread, particularly in what we know as cottage country, in the province of Ontario. The point I would like to make here is that this is precisely the kind of problem that I believe a private member’s bill can hope to remedy. Let me give an example of what I am talking about.

In my riding there is a parcel of land that runs out into the lake. Some 18 years ago or more, the Crown sold the land and it was divided into about 20 lots for the use of cottagers. Since there was no road allowance on the parcel, the cottagers got together and agreed to build their own access road across the rear of each lot. They paid for the original construction and the subsequent upkeep of the road themselves. For many years this private road served the cottagers very well.

Recently, however, one of the lots was sold and the new owner sought to exercise his property rights by closing the road. He poured a number of loads of fill on the road effectively preventing the other cottagers from reaching their property. He sought the payment of an annual fee in return for opening the road again. In my opinion this behaviour was unconscionable and the stranded cottagers should be provided with some type of relief. This arbitrary closing of roads in my estimation is a serious problem and one which this bill could remedy.

What is happening now is that a cottager may drive up to his lake only to find the private road into his or her property barricaded. As a result he or she cannot reach the property by car, which, especially in the case of opening or closing the cottage, can really present a serious problem. What my bill is intended to accomplish is the prevention of arbitrary closing of private roads where legitimate owners or tenants are totally dependent on those roads for motor vehicle access.

It should be pointed out that problems of this kind cannot arise any more. Under the Planning Act and various legislation no one is allowed to sever parcels of land which do not have direct road access. What I’m talking about are situations which developed in the past which now pose problems. As I stated previously, the intent of the bill is to prevent arbitrary closing of roads.

In the bill I attempted to achieve that end by placing the onus on the owner of the property to obtain a court order. Of course questions immediately arose as to the rights of the owner who sought to close a road. The road, after all, did cross his property. But I am concerned that the rights of others would suffer as a result of closing a road which has been open by mutual agreement.

There are probably some cases in which alternate road access is possible, perhaps by developing an existing road allowance. What worries me, though, are those cases like the example I mentioned in which no other road access is feasible. I might add that I would like to see problems such as these amicably settled, of course, by mutual agreement. It should be possible for reasonable people to agree on a method of keeping a private road open where a number of owners or tenants are totally dependent upon it for access to their property.

Unfortunately a happy resolution cannot be achieved in all cases, a great many of which come to my attention as a member of this Legislature. So I decided to see what I could do to help resolve some of these disputes and you now have the result before you.

Since filing the bill on September 1 with the Clerk, I have canvassed many who are familiar with this particular problem. The consensus would appear to be that the intent of the bill is acceptable, but the mechanism I propose requires some clarification. For instance, I should not, perhaps, have used the word “thoroughfare” in the bill, since the roads I have in mind do not provide public access from place to place or town to town. As well, there may be some confusion regarding the word “private.” Perhaps what I should have said is “existing.”

The principal problem, as I see it, is with roads that have been in existence for travel for a number of years but that are not recorded on title as municipally owned roads or private road rights of way. In the case of an arbitrary closing by a resident of a municipally owned or maintained road, where there is doubt about the actual municipal ownership of the road, the present situation is that the municipality must prove to the court’s satisfaction that it does indeed have a legitimate claim to the ownership of such a road.

This is a difficult task, given the state of the historical records dealing with such roads, as well as being costly and time-consuming. While the case proceeds, the residents who require the use of that road to reach their properties are deprived of motor vehicle access.

I understand the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs is looking into a means of establishing that all roads that are municipally maintained and publicly travelled are indeed owned by a municipality. If this can be established, then many of the problems we currently face will disappear. However, there will remain those problems concerning the communal use of a road by residents under an informal agreement among the various property owners using the road.

It has also been brought to my attention that a number of persons and corporations close a private road for 24 hours a year in order to maintain their rights to the road. These roads are otherwise open for the public the rest of the year.

In any event, it is not my intention to affect property rights adversely. I am interested only in protecting those property owners and tenants who would have no other means of access to their properties should a road be arbitrarily closed.

In the bill you will notice that I sought to place the onus on the person wishing to close the road. He or she would have had to apply for a court order closing the road and 10 days’ notice would be given those owners and tenants who would be affected. It’s been brought to my attention that by placing the onus on the owner, we might be interfering with property rights. This, as I have said, I have no intention of doing, and for this reason, as well as for a number of others, I have decided that the bill will require some revision.

On Tuesday I delivered to the various caucus offices copies of the bill as I would like to see it changed. I hope that members have had an opportunity to read the revisions.

The member for Nipissing (Mr. Bolan) didn’t see one? Sorry. If he didn’t get one, I left them at his caucus office, but I happen to have another one here somewhere. I’ll send it over.

Mr. Lawlor: They are fairly extensive.

Mr. Maeck: Rather expensive, yes.

Mr. Foulds: Extensive.

Mr. Maeck: Yes, expensive and extensive.

Mr. Lawlor: I’m not worried about the expense.

Mr. Kennedy: What’s a million, Pat?

Mr. Maeck: From those revisions, members can see that I propose to have anyone wishing to close a private road give 90 days’ notice to those who would be affected. This change, I believe, will remove the burden of seeking a court order. It will also provide affected parties with lots of time to reach an acceptable agreement either to keep open or close the road, or find an alternate access, or seek an injunction from the courts. If this change is acceptable, and should the bill go to committee, then I will have achieved a great part of my objective.

If the 90 days’ notice provision works, there will be no such thing as an arbitrary closing of a private road. In case of dispute, matters will be settled as they are at present, in a court of law.

Mr. Speaker, let me repeat that the objective of this bill is clear. I want to see the arbitrary closing of private roads stopped where there is great inconvenience to others who are dependent upon that road for access to their properties. I believe most hon. members would agree with that objective. In order to avoid some difficulties, I have indicated that the mechanism used to achieve that end should be altered from the original bill that was printed.

[3:30]

The kinds of alterations I would like to make have been drafted, as I mentioned, for the members to read. Should this bill receive approval in principle, it is my intention to ask that it be directed to committee for amendments to be made. At the committee stage, it would be my intention to introduce the amendments that have been given to other members along with other amendments that other members might propose.

I have been relatively brief; so I would just like to restate the aim of the bill, which is to prevent the arbitrary closing of roads. I believe the principle is straightforward and clear. I would, however, like to reserve the remainder of my time to answer questions or make clarifications, if any should arise. If there are none, then, of course, I obviously would not need any more time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Bolan: I share some of the concerns that the hon. member for Parry Sound shares with respect to cottage owners who, all of a sudden, wake up and find out there’s a fence strewn across the road they’ve been using for the past 30 or 40 years. Coming from northern Ontario and coming from a fairly intensive tourist and cottage area, I find it’s a problem we run into quite frequently. In fact, as a lawyer, I’ve had several occasions to deal with cases of this nature. What usually happens is that you commence an action for a declaration that you have rightful usage over that road.

You also bring an injunction to prevent the owner from locking it up and what have you. I’m sure the hon. member for Parry Sound has received many complaints from the constituents in his area who are affected by this.

I support the fundamental idea of the bill. However, in view of the fact that the hon. member for Parry Sound will be bringing the bill back to committee for some modifications and changes, I would ask him to consider certain changes that I have in mind which don’t take anything away from the bill. I think some of the points I will raise point out some flaws in the bill which, if allowed to go through in its present form, I don’t think would be doing justice to either the owner or the person who seeks the usage of it.

First of all, I would like to deal with paragraph 2(1)(

c) where it says, “the closure is of a temporary nature for the purposes of repair or maintenance of the road.” This raises all kinds of possibilities. It raises all kinds of questions. Who determines what is of a temporary nature? Who is to determine the definition of temporary? Is it a month? Is it two months? Is it a day? Who determines and how does he determine when repairs are needed?

Supposing that the owner of the land, the owner of the road, really wants to be tough about it. He can say: “If there’s a rut which is two inches deep, I consider that to be a road which is in need of repair, as a result of which, under the terms of this bill, I can put up the gate,” because the bill specifically provides that you can put up a gate, or that you can lock out other users of it if the closure is of a temporary nature for the purpose of repair or maintenance of the road.

Just what criteria do you use? How many times can you close it down in one year for purposes of repair? I don’t know. These are questions I pose to the hon. member who is proposing this bill. I would ask that he have a look at that feature of it because I can really see where an obdurate owner could create many problems for a person who is a user of the road.

The other

section I would bring to the attention of the member for Parry Sound is

section 3(1). While it’s true that the onus is on the owner to show he has a right to close this road, 3(1) states: “An application for an order closing a private road may be made to a judge in the county or district court in which the proposed place of closure is located and the application shall include a description of the private road sought to be closed.” I’m quite certain that anybody who has a cottage and who does drive over a private road realizes that this road can be anywhere from 10 feet, 20 feet, 100 feet to a mile long.

How are we going to get a proper description of the road which is subject to this particular Act? One knows what the costs of survey fees are. I would venture to say that we would be looking at a minimum of $500 to $1,000 to a maximum of whatever the length of the road may be, so if one is suddenly faced with a need to close this road because of certain abuses which the users are perpetrating on it, one would have to bring the application to the district court judge.

Part of this application would have to be a description of the road. He can’t say: “Starting from the northeast corner and following the oak free 50 paces and then down to the big boulder which is on the rise of the small knoll, another 150 paces.” We don’t do it that way, and any judge is going to ask for a proper description of this road. One then has to go to the surveyor and then he is involved in fees which can be into the thousands of dollars.

Mr. Foulds: It can be done by metes and bounds.

Mr. Bolan: No, it can’t be done by metes and bounds, no.

Mr. Maeck: Most of that has been taken out.

Mr. Lawlor: Look at the revision.

Mr. Bolan: Which revision is this?

An hon. member: We received it this morning.

Mr. Bolan: In any event, it would appear that that is covered by it.

The other point I would like to raise is the question of notice. I realize the member has changed it to 90 days. However, what does concern me is the question of service. Service can be effected by serving the person personally, or as it says in the revisions, by registered mail or by posting it on the land in a place and manner that the notice is conspicuous. We have to remember that many of these people who are affected by road closings are cottagers who reside outside of the area. They may reside in southwestern Ontario or they may reside in Pennsylvania or in Ohio.

I don’t think that if we are dealing with such an important thing as depriving the person of the use of land that service should be in the manner as described. I think service should be personal service. I think the service by registered mail would in some cases not result in the actual --

Mr. Lawlor: Did the member get a chance to look at the revisions? Again, they have changed it quite a bit there and they have it posted up on the property.

Mr. Bolan: I am aware of what the hon. member is saying, but it still does not insist that service be made personally and I feel there would be some serious and irreparable harm done unless service were effected personally. Personal service is not that difficult. One prepares the notice and sends it down to the bailiff or to the sheriff in the area where the person affected resides, then he is served personally with the document, so one knows then and there that he has been properly served.

Again, one can envisage a situation where the person comes to open up his cottage and there is a gate across his path and he says: “Well, my goodness, I haven’t been served.” They will say: “Well, you were served by registered letter,” or “The notice was posted on the tree,” or “It was posted on the gate near your property.” What if the man has been gone for six months? Maybe he moved addresses.

There could be 1,000 reasons why he has not been served properly and the only way to ensure proper service is personal service, particularly when we are dealing with something as fundamental as this, where someone is trying to deprive a person of use of a piece of land which he has been using for a long period of time.

As I say, I support the bill in principle, but I think the hon. member for Parry Sound might want to have a look at some of the items I have raised.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, the member for Parry Sound has done the Legislature a great service for being the first member selected to discuss private members’ bills on both occasions that we have had the new system.

The first time he had that opportunity, he brought to the attention of the Legislature important principles of law, and I suppose his first bill dealt with the very essence of humanity -- a matter of life and death. In my view that’s even more important than Tolstoy’s “War And Peace.”

What is interesting is that in this bill he brings to the attention of the Legislature in a somewhat indirect way, but nevertheless brings to the attention of the Legislature a question that I suspect is even more fundamental to the conservative cast of mind in this province, and that is the right of property.

Mr. Lawlor: Could anything be more sacred?

Mr. Foulds: I plan to speak to the revised version of the bill that the member provided us with, rather than the original form, so that we can discuss in a sensible and logical way what will go to committee, should the bill pass. I do believe the fundamental principle has been maintained in the revised version of the bill; there has been no change in aim or principle. I think that that would be quite acceptable.

The hon. member in his opening statement has given us some examples of why he considers the bill necessary. The first question that I would like to raise -- he dwelt upon the implications of the bill mostly in a rural and northern context -- and I would like to raise the question with the member for consideration in committee stage as to what are the full implications of the bill in an urban context. I think that is one question that we should examine very thoroughly in committee stage.

The hon. member made mention of the plan, I gather by TEIGA, to find out how many roads, if any, in municipalities, are not owned municipally. I suspect there is a fairly large number at the present time, and that it would take a considerable period of time for those to be phased into a municipal system in terms of additional servicing costs that may at the present time be borne by the corporate owner or developer. This is only an instinctive feeling, but the feeling I have is that where it is applicable in an urban setting, the bill will have provided a protection for people in that setting that they might not otherwise have had up to this time.

In other words, I suspect there has been a gap in the legislation, and that would certainly be worth investigating for our debate in committee -- that gap being that it is probably possible at the present time for a corporation to develop a piece of property, own the road systems in that piece of property, have the homes along it rented or sold. Then it is probably possible, although not very often likely to be used, for the roadway to be closed arbitrarily in an urban setting at the present time. If that is so, then this bill, I think, takes a step forward to remedying that situation.

I guess the most clearly delineated example that the member used was where a road had been built by common consent of cottage owners on what was in effect a peninsula. The road went down the centre of the peninsula, infringing on properties on both sides. All the people who owned cottages had granted informally an easement so that the road could be built and everyone would have access to his cottage. Apparently a Johnny-come-lately owner near the end of the peninsula had taken his technical property rights to close off that road.

In that case, I would have to say that Proudhon’s dictum I think legitimately applies that “property is theft.” As to the right and the crossing of that property, he probably didn’t know when he bought the property that that piece of property they closed off was in fact his property. He bought the cottage lot on sight, rather than on a narrow survey, and said, “I’m going to fence off that piece of property.”

[3:45]

Frankly, there are a couple of areas, even in the revised bill, that I would like to see tightened up, without infringing in any common-sense way on property rights.

The first example I would like to use is a hypothetical example but one that I believe exists from time to time in the north particularly. That is when bush roads are built by pulp and paper companies or lumber companies to cut limits, and the limits in many cases are very extensive -- 7,000 or 8,000 square miles. I don’t think there is any single limit that is bigger than that, but some of the combined limits go up to 14,000 or 16,000 square miles.

Over the course of time, those roads have opened up lakes, and the Ministry of Natural Resources has subdivided cottage lots on those lakes. The owners of those cottages have subsequently used the road built by the pulp and paper company for access to their cottages.

What bothers me is that it is possible, I think, by only using the word “ordinarily” in the definition

section of the bill, that the pulp and paper company could close the road arbitrarily, because it could be argued, in court at any rate, that the ordinary use of the road was for extraction of timber from the area and it is only as an incidental use of the road that the cottagers are using it to get to their cottages.

Therefore, I would also like to suggest that we include in that definition some other word such as “regularly,” so that a cottage owner who goes up to his cottage even once or twice a year but on a regular basis at least has the chance to put an argument to the judge that counteracts the argument of a pulp and paper company that might be in that position.

Of course, that doesn’t infringe on the right of the Ministry of Natural Resources that exists at present to close any of those roads under any circumstances should there be a fire danger.

The other clause that I would like the hon. member to take a look at if the essential principle of the bill is to be adhered to is the subclause of closure for maintenance, 2(1)(c). I think the member for Nipissing had a couple of valid observations to make on that point, that we should perhaps at some point in the clause insert the words “bona fide,” so that the repair or maintenance is in fact genuine. I think that clause could be used as a loophole.

Someone could put a barrier across the road, shove a shovel in the middle of a shallow puddle off from the road, or in sand, and say, “I’m repairing the road.” You could then have an argument in court what, in effect, would be genuine repairs to the road.

I think we should also take a look at the length of time there. I know this is difficult, but if there is a small washout, it should not take two summer seasons to repair it. I’m afraid if the clause as printed at present stays in without some qualification, such as “for a reasonable period of time” -- that’s by no means an iron-clad phrasing -- but that idea, I think, should be included in that clause.

All in all, the general intent of this legislation I find very supportable, indeed, in that especially it protects owners --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Foulds: Could I just finish the sentence, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, you may finish the sentence.

Mr. Foulds: I won’t even go back and repeat the first part -- of cottages and other property from arbitrary measures, and things that protect the citizens of Ontario from arbitrary measures are not only good enough for Junius in the Globe and Mail, but in this particular instance they are good enough for me.

Mr. Kennedy: I am pleased to rise in support of this bill, in fact in support of both bills that are going to be heard this afternoon.

The member for Lakeshore mentioned something of the cost of this, or it was mentioned earlier as an aside. That is no great concern here as I see it, but it certainly is in the second, along with the bureaucracy that is needed. If it does pass, I would hope it goes to committee where these things can be sorted out. As I say, I am in support of both of them this afternoon.

This bill is filling a need that has caused hardship on occasions. I have some familiarity with instances such as this bill is designed to remedy. None of us likes to be in a position where we are left stranded on arriving on a rainy Friday night, with the children screaming in the back of the car and this type of thing, to find the gate closed across the roads. It causes very human problems. Where a person has enjoyed informal access either under informal agreement or perhaps no agreement for many years, then this access can be stopped up without any notice or indication at all.

The subject matter is attractive to me because it can alleviate such problems as this. I am in support of this principle. I am sure the hon. member will agree that arbitrary closing is a hardship that should not be endured by owners or tenants or leaseholders who have access through or over a private road,

Mr. Lawlor: But surely a man should be able to do whatever he wants with his own property.

Mr. Kennedy: A very good point. Just bear me out and hear the rest of the point.

This is the first thing, as a matter of fact -- to the member for Lakeshore -- that struck me. I recall a number of years ago when the member and myself were putting through some private members’ bills I had one with respect to the right of entry which was a protection to private owners from the intrusions of authority without proper notice. I don’t know whatever became of that. I think it might be built into the revised Municipal Act at this point.

Anyway this came up. I don’t believe owners should have their legitimate rights interfered with. They tell me, with or without this, it is necessary or can be necessary for an owner who stops up a road to obtain a court order because this can be protested or challenged by the private owners who are no longer able to use the road and they can go to court. In the meantime, the road is blocked. The bill is to alleviate this. If there is a very slight infringement on civil rights or property rights for a few days -- and it doesn’t have to be 90 days -- they can settle the thing in advance or perhaps in a week, if they are not living out of the country, as the member for Port Arthur suggests.

There is one change I would like the sponsor to consider in this. Maybe it is a matter of clarification, but if it goes to committee it could be dealt with. I may be picking a nit on it. It is

section 2(1) where I have underlined the word “all”. The change is “prevents ‘all’ road access.” That perhaps covers it, but I would suggest after the word “access” he should insert “over such road” because “all road access” I can interpret as being road access that could go in any other direction. Perhaps that would clarify it. Perhaps the underlying word “all” in the bill covers the point.

The problem is generally only relevant to cottage country but as I mentioned it can be a hardship.

Mr. Lawlor: You have a lot of private roads in your riding.

Mr. Kennedy: We have driveways. Your own driveway, yes.

Mr. Lawlor: All those estates south of the highway.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Kennedy: Those are private roads to your own property. Those are driveways. We are not talking about driveways.

Mr. Lawlor: The same thing.

Mr. Kennedy: You should consult a lawyer. There are lots of instances where no other way in is possible. So we move this forward and I support it, to overcome that.

I agree with the member. I had a couple of notes, and I am sure the member for Parry Sound will touch on these points. The member for Nipissing mentioned maintenance. In cottage country this is usually a shared agreement by the owners to put on some gravel or perhaps fix a culvert and this type of thing. But again, I think the 24-hour clause covers that point.

Legal descriptions: This throws a curve, if someone did have to get an involved legal description, and certainly surveyors don’t come on a low budget in this day and age. In committee or perhaps if the member responds,

section 3(2) and 3(3) mention where the judge considers proper. I don’t know if this would take you around the problem of obtaining a precise legal description. The owner or the tenants or cottage owners whose access was being impeded could say to the judge, “That road is to our lake, you know where it is, Judge. They’ve blocked it up.” Whether he would accept that or not -- or whether he would consider that proper in the circumstances -- I would hope so.

Personal service: I don’t think that should throw us, because there are so many pieces of legislation whereby notice must be served on people. You could go to any one of so many Acts and use that as reference material in order to ensure that appropriate and proper service was given.

I commend the member for bringing this forward, and as I said at the outset, I am pleased to support the bill.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. I would like to tell the member for Parry Sound that I am a frequent visitor to his area, that I spend much of my leisure time in the north, and this particular --

Mr. Lawlor: You spend a lot of time in the north then.

Mr. Kerrio: -- bill addresses itself to a very important problem that exists for some people, not only property owners but those people who travel throughout the north.

I have listened with interest to many of the comments by my colleagues and I concur with many of them. If I were to offer something constructive in the way of the drafting of this bill it would relate to

section 2. I think it may be very significant and I hope the member for Parry Sound will make note of it and if such part should be altered in any way he may address himself to it.

It says specifically in

section 2 that “no person shall construct or place a barrier or other obstacle over a private road that as a result prevents road access to one or more parcels of land” -- I won’t go into the subsections. I am suggesting that an owner could alter the road in another way or other ways that would prevent access over the road. Typically, he could remove a bridge, or come in with a bulldozer and remove a part of the road. I think if the member will read the bill carefully he’ll find that possibly this part has really not been covered adequately, so that this bill could be circumvented by such action.

[4:00]

I had another concern and I’m sorry to say I just got the revised copy of your bill. The member has addressed himself to many areas that were of concern to me. One of great concern to me is the fact that I think it’s important that we in this Legislature protect the rights of the individual property owner and that we make very sure that in such legislation, where the owner is not going to get any more services for the situation that may develop in the closing of such a road, that we don’t put him to any great expense to defend his position. I think it’s incumbent on us to make certain that that doesn’t happen.

So, in closing, I’m pleased to support this bill. I hope the member will take those few remarks into consideration and I think that that, in fact, is all I would have to offer in this debate.

Mr. Philip: I rise in support of this bill, Mr. Speaker, and I will also be supporting the next bill. The case that the member for Parry Sound used in his lead-off speech is not an isolated one. I’ve run into several similar examples in different parts of the province: roads which, for whatever reason, are not legally recorded and can cause problems, the needless legal expense that can result from misunderstandings and altercations, often ones that are human relations problems and have nothing to do with the particular property. These needless expenses, I think, can be to some extent overcome by this kind of bill.

The fact is that the major principle and purpose of the bill, which is to stop the arbitrary closing of the road, is one that I don’t think anyone in this House can oppose. The member for Parry Sound has indicated he is willing to have the bill go into committee, and some of the points raised by previous speakers for consideration, I think, are ones that may well be looked at in committee, but certainly are not reasons for offering any opposition to the bill.

Lest anyone think this bill is merely one that affects the cottage country areas, let me share with you the fact that my colleague, the member for Yorkview (Mr. Young), informs me he has run across examples where this bill would be of assistance to residents in his riding, many of them immigrants who purchased property without perhaps sufficient legal counsel --

Mr. Laughren: Poor legal counsel.

Mr. Philip: -- who have in fact had difficulties in the area of York county. The member for Port Arthur has just asked the question of application to urban settings, and I think that perhaps the experience of the member for Yorkview, then, is some confirmation of the need to look at this.

The clause concerning the closure of the road for maintenance or repair certainly needs strengthening. One might argue that no one would have any, or one might argue that one would not likely have, an economic reason for unreasonably holding up access. However, the fact is that often in cases like this, it’s not an economic problem, but a human relations problem; someone just doesn’t get on with his neighbour. This kind of legislation will help to regularize that kind of situation.

In voting for the bill, for any bill, one must consider not only who will have some advantage as a result of the bill, but also who can possibly be damaged by the bill. I made a number of telephone calls to those whom I thought might be interested in this particular bill. The last person I was talking to was one of the researchers at the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. It’s significant that while not everyone I spoke to was in favour of the bill in the sense of seeing some definite, concrete advantage to him or to his interest group, no one that I spoke to saw any disadvantage to his particular group.

I would therefore voice once again my support for the bill and my compliments to the mover of the bill.

Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this bill at all and I’m particularly delighted to be able to speak in support of it. I speak in support of it because I feel it is most appropriate for a discussion at this particular time of the week. I have had other responsibilities in this Legislature and I have found that in many cases, in my opinion, some of the bills that were introduced were not appropriate for this particular hour. This one is.

It fits the philosophy that I’ve had of government for a long time in that it’s declaratory. It does not involve the government in the administration of anything. It does not require any regulations. Nowhere in the bill is a ministry, a minister, or the Lieutenant Governor in Council mentioned, and that is the kind of law I like to see.

Mr. Lawlor: These are all the virtues of it.

Mr. Handleman: We leave it to the courts, and I think the hon. member for Lakeshore would agree that --

Mr. Wildman: It is the only kind of law that can operate well under your government.

Mr. Handleman: -- the courts are the best arbiter of this kind of legislation.

There is a need for it -- not a burning public, urgent need, but the member has spotted a problem that exists in this province. A number of people suffer from the deficiencies because the law does not cover this kind of situation and therefore he has quite appropriately used the privilege that has come to him by lot to bring forward to this Legislature a remedy for that kind of problem.

Throughout the discussion a great deal has been made of cottage territory. I want to make it quite clear that I speak in support of this from personal experience in an urban and suburban area. We haven’t always had the very sophisticated planning devices that are now in place. At one time, I lived in a subdivision that was registered some 70 years ago in an urban area. Through inadvertence or lack of control, a builder built four houses on three city lots. The obvious remedy that would come to mind now would be to tear down one of the buildings. In those days we were a little bit more practical.

An arrangement was worked out so that one of the property owners gained access to his property by entering it through somebody else’s lot.

It was a matter of goodwill, a matter of friendliness, a matter of neighbourliness. That’s the kind of thing that does apply in most places in this province under those circumstances. But every so often in a fit of pique, as the member for Etobicoke mentioned, a person will deny his neighbour the right of access.

What this bill does, no matter what the clauses may say, is to provide a cooling-off period when a person who is denied that kind of privilege can try to persuade the person who has denied him the privilege of entry to allow him to do it. If the person who has done the denial has good cause, he can prove it, in a court if necessary. I feel this kind of cooling-off period would result in very few cases going to court, that the thing would be settled as a matter of agreement between people who are reasonable, and in the odd case where there is going to be an arbitrary closing of a road, the court can provide some relief to those who are denied access to their property.

In so far as it interferes with the absolute right of control over private property, there’s nothing new about that. I think this Legislature, this government and all governments everywhere in the civilized world have recognized that in the public interest there must be some control over the absolute right to enjoy private property.

I was somewhat interested in hearing the member for Port Arthur support the bill on the ground of potential corporate abuse, which I suppose meets his philosophy. Whatever the support for this bill and for whatever reasons, I welcome it.

I want to congratulate the member for Parry Sound for having brought this forward because I do say again that this kind of bill should be brought forward in private members’ hour and should be supported by members on all sides of the House. I’m pleased to see that it has been.

Mr. Lawlor: That’s the best speech you’ve ever made.

Mr. Speaker: The next member I have on this list is the hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway). I’ll recognize the hon. member for Algoma.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill and I want to congratulate the member for Parry Sound for introducing it. Although there have been statements made about the application of the bill to urban centres and so on, I think it has special application to the north and to ridings like mine.

In many areas of unorganized territory in northern Ontario, there have been developments in the past which did not follow the planning procedures that normally are followed in municipalities. As a result, there are sometimes situations where people have cottage lots or permanent homes that can only be reached by crossing someone else’s piece of property.

That’s also sometimes true because of the topography of the area: There might be a road allowance in an area but in the old days, when it came to building the road, it was too difficult to cross a sudden rock outcrop in the middle of the road allowance and they just went around it. In many cases, going around it meant going across private property.

As was mentioned by the member for Nipissing, this just doesn’t mean you’re talking about short pieces of road. In some cases in my area you’re talking about crossing two or three miles of large bush lots that are actually owned by someone else.

Since I was first elected in September 1975, I’ve had a number of cases come to my attention in areas that were unorganized and have since become municipalities where the history of the easement, if there was one, is very unclear. There have been questions as to who has the right to control the road because it’s a new municipality. Does the owner of the property control the road? Do the people who are using the road control it?

There have been suggestions that if public moneys were expended on the road for maintenance in the past, it could mean that it was public. There might have been a roads board or a statute labour board in the past that spent some money on maintenance, but I understand in law that’s very unclear and very questionable. Just because public moneys have been spent on the road, the fact is it still may not be a public road.

What is most commendable about the bill, I think, is that it makes it impossible now for an arbitrary closing, a sudden closing. where people are not informed in advance. That’s the most attractive thing about the bill.

One other thing that I think is also good about it is that in giving this 90-day period, it makes it possible for a mutual agreement to be worked out; hopefully that can avoid having to go to court to solve the whole problem in that manner but, if that’s necessary, fine.

Also, I liked the comments in the opening statement of the member for Parry Sound where he suggested that in some cases it might be possible now, with our better technology and perhaps more money to be spent, actually to build an alternative access along a road allowance; that kind of agreement could be worked out if a municipality is being organized.

For those reasons, I want to commend the member for Parry Sound for introducing the bill and to assure him that he has my support on second reading.

Mr. Speaker: If there are no other members who wish to speak, the hon. member for Parry Sound has the right to use his unexpended time.

Mr. Maeck: Mr. Speaker, I don’t intend to use the nine minutes that are allotted to me but I do want to thank the members most sincerely for their support on this particular bill.

I believe it is a good piece of legislation. There is no question that some amendments will have to be made in committee if it passes the vote later this afternoon. But I do have some concerns about some of the things that have been mentioned by the hon. members.

Some of the items that the member for Nipissing spoke about, of course, were contained in the original bill and have been changed in the proposal that I have put before the members of the Legislature. I believe the matter of maintenance in that particular

section will have to be dealt with further.

The matter of personal service is something I thought about for a long time. Unfortunately, there are cases where we have people from the United States and other areas who own property and could be affected. To be able to give proper service to those people -- that is, personal service -- may be very difficult. I did change the matter of service in my proposal from registered mail to notices handed to an adult who is an occupant of the land or to the notice posted on the land in a place and manner that makes the notice conspicuous to an occupant of the land. I thought that would, perhaps, cover the situation. However, we can debate this further in committee.

[4:15]

There were other suggestions made by various members who took

part in the debate, but I believe those are things that should be debated if and when we go to committee. Again, I thank the members very sincerely for their support.

Mr. Speaker: That concludes the debate on item 1.

SMALL BUSINESS IN ONTARIO ACT

Mr. Eakins moved second reading of Bill 64,

An Act respecting Small Business in Ontario.

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to introduce my private member’s bill,

an Act respecting Small Business in Ontario. As indicated to you previously, I will endeavour to confine my remarks within the 15-minute range and, if necessary, to sum up with a response to any concerns that might be expressed.

We, in our party, are committed to the support of the independent entrepreneur and the free enterprise system which is an integral and important part of Canada’s democratic tradition. In the past, free enterprise has helped our country to grow and to prosper. It has a vital role to play in the future of our nation, particularly with respect to sustaining and strengthening our economy.

Mr. Laughren: It’s doing a lot for Sudbury. Yes, tell us more. Great system. Creating all sorts of jobs. What a joke.

Mr. Eakins: The very survival of this system depends not only on a viable big business sector but, more importantly, on a wide-ranging and flourishing small business community. The great potential of small business has been clearly demonstrated. It is flexible, able to adapt quickly to changes in the market and possesses great capacities --

Mr. Mackenzie: Free enterprise, and you want government controls.

Mr. Eakins: -- for technological and other innovation. However, small business has been neglected by governments in this country and its importance diminished by comparison with the large corporations. For example, it is not heavily favoured for subcontracting as in the case of Japan, Germany and the United States where governments have fostered and supported the growth and development of small business.

While we have at present in Canada a very widespread small business sector, typical of any large country with a comparatively small population, it has not to date been able to develop even a small percentage of its full potential. I believe we must now move as quickly as possible to give increased emphasis and impetus to the small business sector because it is uniquely adapted to cope with the kind of economic conditions which prevail. Our sagging economy needs assistance from every sector in the business community and small business can make a very considerable impact on our current critical unemployment situation.

If we are to have any hope at all of reducing today’s tragically high unemployment, of strengthening our economy by meeting the challenges of today’s competitive markets, we must drastically readjust our ideas and our priorities. The old concepts of large companies of increasing concentration are outdated. Large companies may be efficient. Mass-produced items may be inexpensive -- maybe. However, big business does not have the flexibility to adapt to today’s conditions of slower financial growth.

Here in Ontario, we desperately need to ease the pressures on our highly congested urban centres and to improve the tax base and development of our smaller communities. Small business ventures are ideal for this purpose. Moreover, they can be crucial to reversing the present economic trends. Many of our current economic problems are caused by an inability to adjust to the new realities, by carrying over into the seventies the practices and ideas of the more prosperous, more buoyant sixties.

An even greater challenge will face us in the next decade. We simply must conserve our resources, particularly our energy supply, and increase our efficiency. Inevitably, energy prices and in fact energy supplies are going to have a major impact on the future of this country. Domestically and in the international arena, rising costs are making large, wholly automated, capital and energy intensive, centralized enterprises less viable.

This country’s future economic development and the standard of living of all Canadians will depend to a great extent on our ability to become more self-reliant and conservationist. New technologies, such as solar heat and others, lend themselves to small operations and small-scale equipment, with a considerable potential for export to other countries, particularly the developing nations.

Bearing in mind the vital importance of energy-related transportation costs, smaller, more localized firms will be more energy-saving than large, regional or national enterprises. With developing technology, there will in the years ahead also be much greater emphasis on small-scale operations which take advantage of local resources.

I believe there can be no question that a strong and expanding small business sector will enable this province and this country to be more competitive and more self-sufficient. Clearly, the time has come when we must accept the fact that we can no longer rely upon our natural resources or our borrowings in the international money markets as a means to compensate for our enormous trade deficit. Small firms have the potential to make a major contribution to the balance of payments by replacing imports.

This is just one example of the extent to which a strengthened and expanded small business sector would generate essential economic and social benefits for this province and for the country as a whole. We in our party have a fundamental commitment to competition and diversity as essential elements of a prosperous, democratic society. We believe that deconcentration of economic and political power will create conditions in which people are able to contribute to society in a meaningful way.

Today, more than perhaps at any other time in our history, Canadians need to know that they have a contribution to make; that they have a stake in this country and its future. A thriving small business sector encourages individual initiative and the development of a full personal potential in the business world. As a general rule, small firms offer wider scope to the individual, the possibility of making a greater, more personal contribution and also, in many cases, increased opportunity for personal advancement.

The social benefits of small business cannot be overlooked. The great majority of people have an inborn desire to be independent -- in the language of our times, to do their own thing. In our highly industrialized western society, there is little room for the discovery and development of the talents of the craftsman and the artisan. There is a great deal of on-the-job alienation. Many employees drag through their working days in jobs which they consider soul-destroying. Small firms help to build communities and individual self-reliance.

They can be the catalyst through which individuals develop unique talents and skills, and the channels through which society can benefit from these talents and skills.

Earlier this year, the European Economic Community released a study of small and medium-sized businesses which indicated that the small firm sector could be an important factor in the reduction of alienation and social tensions. The study maintained that, and I quote: “Since small and medium-sized undertakings are so important for job stability and the maintenance of industrial peace, all social legislation should be geared towards maintaining independent businesses.”

Over the past year, the number of unemployed in Ontario has been rising significantly. As of September, more than 262,000 were unemployed in this province. That’s a real rate of 6.5 per cent; a seasonally adjusted rate of 7.3 per cent. Again for September, the number of unemployed young Ontarians, those under 25 years of age, was 139,000 or 12.1 per cent. Before this situation becomes even more serious, we must find the means to stimulate our economy and create jobs.

The small business sector employs between 50 and 60 per cent of all working Canadians. Small business is labour intensive and can create new jobs much more quickly and cheaply than capital-intensive industries. It has been estimated that the small firm sector can produce a new job for under $5,000, while the capital-intensive sector may require anywhere from $70,000 to several hundred thousand dollars or even $1 million, depending on the industry. Our party believes that, if for no other reason, the small business sector should be supported and promoted because of its job creation capacity in view of this province’s high unemployment.

In this connection, during the recent election campaign and the months since, we have proposed a program for government to work with small business to create the jobs we need by paying 20 per cent of the salary for each additional worker hired by a small business. We have proposed that this should