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

June 22, 1979

31st Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L079 - Fri 22 Jun 1979 / Ven 22 jun 1979

SERVICE OF SUBPOENA

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

MANPOWER COMMISSION

CEMETERIES LEGISLATION

FIREFIGHTING BY INMATES

ORAL QUESTIONS

MANPOWER POLICY

DISCOUNT PRACTICES

SKILLS TRAINING

LIQUOR REGULATIONS

REVIEW OF BILL 100

CHEESE PRODUCTION

COURT FACILITIES

CHEMICALS IN SCHOOLYARD

LAURENTIAN HOSPITAL

MILK PRICES

ONTARIO HOME RENEWAL PROGRAM

BOISE CASCADE DISPUTE

ILLEGAL DUMPING OF LIQUID WASTE

REPORTS

FOREIGN PURCHASES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND

STANDING ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE COMMITTEE

SUMMER RECESS

STANDING RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTION

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BALLOT

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTION

COMMITTEE MEETINGS

REDIRECTION OF BILL 100

POLLUTION COMPLAINT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RESIDENTIAL PREMISES RENT REVIEW AMENDMENT ACT

VILLAGE OF POINT EDWARD ACT

GITY OF OTTAWA AGT

MASSEY HALL ACT

MONTCREST SCHOOL ACT

TRUSTEES OF WINDSOR GROVE CEMETERY ACT

DISTRICT OF PARRY SOUND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT

THIRD READING

PUBLIC UTILITIES AMENDMENT ACT

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HALDIMAND-NORFOLK AMENDMENT ACT

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA AMENDMENT ACT

COUNTY OF OXFORD AMENDMENT ACT

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

THIRD READING

ANSWER TO QUESTION ON NOTICE PAPER

MOTION

COMMITTEE MEETINGS

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

THIRD READING

ROYAL ASSENT

TYNWALD MILLENNIUM

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

SERVICE OF SUBPOENA

Mr. J. A. Taylor: On a matter of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I wish to call to the attention of the House that last Tuesday, June 19, I was served with a subpoena in my office by a representative of the legal firm of Lockwood and Bellmore to appear as a witness in a Supreme Court case involving the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

I believe this to be a breach of my privileges as a member of this House, not only by a person invading my office in this building for such a purpose without your authority, Mr. Speaker, but, more important, I believe it to be a breach of the immunity provided by

section 38 of the Legislative Assembly Act which prohibits the arrest, detention or molestation for any cause or matter whatever of a civil nature during a session of the Legislature or during the 20 days following the session.

With respect to the question of whether or not the service of a subpoena constitutes molestation under

section 38, I refer the House to May’s Parliamentary Practice, 19th edition, page 92 and following. It is not my intention at this time to move a motion to bring the offender before this House. I have no particular objection to acting as a witness in the matter at issue, but I would not like to be placed in the position of providing a precedent which would infringe the recognized privileges of this House and the members thereof.

Mr. Riddell: You have my full support.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I thought I would.

Mr. Riddell: I will even get on the procedural affairs committee if you want to bring the matter before it.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member has quoted the privilege of immunity that is enjoyed by all members of this House under those circumstances, but the initiative rests with the member, should he choose to pursue it further. I assume he does not, and that the purpose of making his statement was just to appraise the House of what had taken place.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

MANPOWER COMMISSION

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, as members will recall, the speech from the throne on March 6 stated that my ministry would be given the mandate to guide and co-ordinate the government’s manpower activities and that in recognition of this new responsibility the ministry would be renamed the Ministry of Labour and Manpower.

Much work has been done in the period since the throne speech to prepare for the assumption of this important assignment. A variety of manpower programs are now administered by the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Community and Social Services, the Provincial Secretariat for Social Development, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the Ministry of Industry and Tourism. As well, the work and activities of a number of other ministries have implications for the labour market.

In the broadest sense, the assignment given to me in the speech from the throne is to see that all such programs and initiatives are designed, implemented and co-ordinated so as to ensure that our manpower needs are adequately addressed, now and in the future.

After a careful study of the problem, including the assessment of a number of organizational options, I am convinced that something other than a mere realignment of program responsibilities is required.

Mr. S. Smith: Yes, a new government.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Accordingly, the government has approved the creation of an Ontario Manpower Commission to be chaired by a full-time manpower commissioner reporting through me to the cabinet. The commission will be empowered to oversee all of the manpower programs and activities of the government and, subject to cabinet concurrence, to make policy and operational decisions concerning those programs.

Mr. S. Smith: Don’t you have enough civil servants to do that?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: You’re a nice young man, but just hang on.

Thus, while the commission will be located in the Ministry of Labour and Manpower, its functional mandate is not limited by ministerial boundaries.

Mr. Eakins: There goes your leadership down the drain.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: This broad transministerial authority is, I believe, essential if we are to achieve the desired results.

Mr. Ruston: What’s this all about?

Mr. Kerrio: It’s time for a vacation.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: One of the commission’s main and continuing tasks will be to evaluate all existing programs, measure their effectiveness in achieving results and, where appropriate, determine what changes in policy or delivery techniques may be desirable.

A second important function of the commission will be to mobilize community support and participation. I believe all the commissioners who have agreed to serve share the conviction that while central direction is important, successful manpower activities must be firmly rooted in the community. Through a variety of contacts across the province with organizations, associations and groups of interested persons, the commission will promote and encourage local and regional participation in training, counselling and placement, as well as the collection, analysis and communication of timely and accurate labour market data.

It will be obvious to members that the success of the commission will depend in large part upon the calibre of the permanent commissioner and his part-time associates. Therefore, I am particularly pleased to announce today that we have been successful in securing the services of one of the province’s outstanding industrialists to chair the commission. Mr. R. Donald Pollock, president and chief operating executive of Canada Wire and Cable Company Limited, who is present this morning in the Speaker’s gallery, has agreed to accept this challenging assignment for two years, commencing August 1.

Mr. Pollock is a native of Peterborough, and a graduate of Victoria College. He held important positions with Canadian General Electric and Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Company before joining Canada Wire and Cable in 1966. He is a member of the Science Council of Canada, and recently chaired a labour-management sector task team established by the Ministry of Industry and Tourism to analyse the electrical and electronics industry in Ontario.

Over the past few months I have had the privilege of working with Mr. Pollock and other representatives of industry, labour and the educational community in an informal advisory group dealing with the important manpower issues addressed at the Skills for Jobs conference held in June 1978.

I am therefore in a position to say that we have, as chairman, an unusually dedicated, talented and determined individual who believes, as I do, that we must do everything in our power to ensure that our labour force is properly trained and productively employed so as to achieve the growth and prosperity in the 1980s to which we all aspire.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s the government’s job.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: We also share the view that our prospects for success depend in large measure upon the co-operative involvement of labour, management and the educational community in this important and difficult endeavour. Accordingly, the commission which Mr. Pollock will chair will comprise persons from the constituencies which I have mentioned who are acknowledged to have wide experience in the manpower field.

Mr. S. Smith: Another commission.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I am pleased to advise the House that the following individuals have agreed to serve as commissioners: Mr. Greg Murtagh, director of education, Ontario Federation of Labour; Mr. Peter Dawson, training specialist, the Procter and Gamble Company of Canada Limited; Mary Eady, director, women’s bureau, Canadian Labour Congress; and Kenneth Hunter, president, Conestoga College of Applied Arts and Technology. The secretariat of the commission will be headed by John Kinley of my ministry, who has had broad experience in manpower matters, both in government and in the private sector.

Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I should like to refer to a related initiative concerning manpower. It is recognized, I believe, that an essential precondition to effective manpower planning is accurate knowledge of industry’s needs. We hear much about the shortage of skilled labour, but we need to have the best possible information about where shortages are likely to occur in the near, mid- and longer term so the appropriate training, guidance and placement planning decisions can be made. This in turn requires that industry share with us their demand forecasts.

Due in large part to Mr. Pollock’s determined efforts, a comprehensive labour market information survey is about to be launched. The survey was designed by the labour market information unit in my ministry and is being distributed under the sponsorship of Mr. Pollock and four Ontario industrialists: Gerald Elford, president of Upper Canada Manufacturing Limited; Chester Fisher, executive vice-president, Fisher Gauge Limited; Gerald Heffernan, president, Co-Steel International Limited; and Sheldon Lush, chairman and chief executive officer, Supreme Aluminum Industries Limited.

The wide distribution of the survey, the first of its kind in Ontario, is made possible as a result of the co-operation of the Ontario division of the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, all of whose members will be canvassed.

I believe the support by Ontario employers and associations of this essential information-gathering endeavour is an encouraging example of the widespread and genuine concern about manpower mailers and the co-operative spirit in which the community is prepared to address them. I think this co-operation augurs well for the work of the new commission.

I am sure that all members join with me in expressing the hope and conviction that the Ontario Manpower Commission will make a significant contribution to one of our most urgent social and economic issues.

[10:15]

CEMETERIES LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw to the attention of the Legislature the fact that my ministry intends to amend the Cemeteries Act in the fall session. To ensure the opportunity for full consultation and consideration by all parties involved, a discussion draft will be sent to them for comment over the summer.

The first cemeteries legislation was passed in 1850 and has been revised from time to time since then. However, there have been no revisions for the past 11 years, in spite of the fact that business operations have changed substantially in that time. As part of the process of preparing the proposed bill we have held discussions with those directly involved, and I believe it will reflect the changes requested by the Ontario Association of Cemeteries.

We have also met with the joint steering committee on native affairs and have reached agreement in principle with them.

The discussion proposal clarifies the responsibilities of the municipalities with regard to the establishment and enlargement of cemeteries and related structures. This will enable municipalities to deal with cemeteries as an integral part of their land-use planning.

This provision is consistent as well with the Ontario government policy of deregulation.

By eliminating the need to pass trust fund accounts in surrogate courts, the act provides financial relief to the older, smaller cemeteries. Accounts will now be filed with the cemeteries branch of my ministry. I want to emphasize, however, that we have maintained the right of the family to ask for, and to receive, information about those accounts.

The cemeteries branch will also provide a watchdog function over any commercial operations regarding cemeteries in order to ensure that they operate in accordance with the law.

An expanded licensing provision is also included which would require all cemeteries in Ontario to be licensed. However, we intend to proclaim this

section only if events so demand.

My staff has spent many months meeting with the organizations and people directly affected, and I am confident the discussion bill which will be sent out within the next few weeks will reflect the concerns of all involved. I would ask that comments be directed to the cemeteries branch of my ministry by the end of August in order that we may proceed with the necessary legislation as soon as the House resumes this fall.

FIREFIGHTING BY INMATES

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that the Ministry of Correctional Services is assembling an emergency team of inmates to assist the Ministry of Natural Resources with firefighters duties in northern Ontario, should their services be required.

Yesterday, plans had progressed to the point where upwards of 60 inmates were to be deployed to the fire fronts from correctional institutions in Kenora, Thunder Bay and Monteith. Although rain within the last 12 hours has alleviated the immediate need, the emergency inmate team remains on standby and will respond within a couple of hours if necessary.

This service to the people of Ontario will be available throughout the fire season. If more manpower is required, other jails and correctional centres will provide help.

The inmates will assist with cleanup and other such duties as assigned by the Ministry of Natural Resources and will, of course, be under the custodial supervision of correctional officers. The emergency team will remain on duty for as long as there is a need.

The participating inmates will be volunteers. They are being carefully screened to ensure they pose no threat to community safety.

This response to a provincial emergency is in keeping with our philosophy of encouraging inmates to accept responsibility for civic duty. Last year, with the encouragement of the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Watson), inmates provided 177,600 hours of community work to the citizens of Ontario. More than 1,300 inmate man-hours were spent clearing flooded land in Dover township this spring.

We do not believe inmates should sit idly in jail, at the taxpayers’ expense, when there are so many opportunities for them to make repayment to society through useful community service. Work of this nature helps to instill a sense of responsibility. Time is spent positively and inmates learn firsthand that there are many people worse off than they are. The remedial benefits speak for themselves.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MANPOWER POLICY

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour stemming from the statement he just made to the House. Does he recall that on October 28, 1974, the Provincial Secretary for Social Development stood and said the following, announcing the creation of a manpower secretariat: “The manpower secretariat is an outgrowth of the work within my secretariat which indicated the need for closer liaison among ministries regarding manpower policy. Some time ago, it became evident that there are special problems in co-ordinating requirements for skills with the effort of our education ministries and with the responsiveness of the labour market to changing circumstances.”

These are very familiar words indeed, since we have just heard them again. Will the minister therefore admit that this secretariat, which still exists in this government and which was set up five years ago to do the necessary job, has been an abject failure? Will he admit that his statement today of a new, outside commission is an indication of a recognition of that failure? If he agrees with me, would he tell us whether he has analysed the reasons for the failure of the existing manpower secretariat and what assurance he has that the new commission will do a better job?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that when the statement the member referred to was made in 1974 there was an honest belief that those steps being proposed would indeed solve the problems then perceived. Clearly, in our view they have not progressed as rapidly as one would have hoped and it was felt that a new modality, a new concept, was required.

As to why we chose the suggestion of a manpower commission, I hope the member will agree there was a great variety of choices. All the other choices involved moving parts or the whole of programs into the Ministry of Labour. Frankly, it was my feeling we would spend so much time realigning programs and transferring and adjusting things that again there would be delays in getting down to dealing with the problem.

I thought we would be far better off to approach it with the concept of a manpower commission headed by people who are separate and distinct from government und who have a definite, committed interest in the problem which goes beyond the interest of any of us, because they are involved in it and they know the specific needs.

It is my feeling that this semi-independent body, with the direct access it will have through me to the Executive Council, will be very influential in policy matters and in program matters. I see this as the correct approach and I trust members will agree with me.

Mr. S. Smith: May I ask two things? First of all, will the manpower co-ordinating committee secretariat, under the executive coordination of Mr. J. H. Kinley and with a number of other employees, be immediately disbanded? According to what the minister said, it obviously has been a disappointment. Furthermore, did the government not consult with people in labour and industry and so on during the past five years? If it did consult with these people, why were no results produced so that government has to start all over again by handing the job over to a new commission?

The basic question is, does the minister not recognize that this has been a serious failure on the part of the government and that handing the matter over to a new commission now, especially since rumour has it that the reason the old one failed was lack of interministerial co-operation, should have been preceded by an analysis of the existing failures?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: With regard to the manpower secretariat, as I have already indicated in my statement that secretariat and Mr. Kinley will remain in the Ministry of Labour but will serve the manpower commissioner and the commission. The Ontario manpower coordinating committee secretariat as a body per se will be dissolved. Frankly, I do not say it was a failure; I just say it was not acting rapidly enough and we were not achieving the results I see a commission such as this being able to achieve. I can’t say it was a failure.

Mr. S. Smith: Five years and no results.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The member well knows the problems and the complexity of the problems related in gathering the information and in getting an effective program going. I am convinced the approach we are taking is the correct one.

Mr. S. Smith: Will you take five years?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Let’s hope the member is around to find out.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: One cannot help suspecting the government has done the minimum possible to carry out the promise made in the throne speech about turning this ministry into the Ministry of Labour and Manpower. Can the minister say what specific powers this new manpower commission or the minister himself will have if the community colleges cannot afford to expand manpower training because of shortages of funds? What specific powers will the new manpower commission have when high schools cannot offer up-to-date training because they can’t afford new equipment?

What specific powers will this new organization have if the selective placement service of the Ministry of Industry and Tourism is looking for skilled workers abroad rather than putting pressure on employers to make sure they train them here in this province? What specific powers will this ministry have, now that it is the Ministry of Labour and Manpower, if what is required is additional funding to ensure we get the skilled workers we need, but that funding is not available because of the cutback policy of this government?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I will comment on the member’s concern about the effectiveness of a commission such as this. I can only reaffirm my own conviction that this is the right approach and will be the most successful approach that could have been taken by government.

As to the terms of reference, they are outlined partially in the statement I have given. They will oversee all of the manpower programs and activities of the government and, subject to cabinet concurrence, make policy and operational decisions concerning those programs. In other words, they will have an almost direct connection to the Executive Council so that the council can directly respond to their recommendation.

That is a pretty important linkage and an important commitment by the government regarding its concern on the manpower issue.

Mr. S. Smith: You’re appointing Kinley all over again.

Mr. Sweeney: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister tell us what authority will this new commissioner and this new commission have to direct -- and I specifically choose that word -- the post-secondary institutions and the adult training institutions in this province to carry out certain mandates?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, that is one of the very matters the commission will have incredible input into. Naturally the first rule will be to see if the changes the commission feels are warranted can be achieved by negotiation. But the importance of the terms of reference is that if there is a failure of co-operation in any way, then there is direct access to the cabinet so that there can be a cabinet direction as to the direction that is to be taken. I think that is an important initiative.

Mr. S. Smith: You had it before.

Mr. Renwick: By way of a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, why would the minister, which is quite uncharacteristic of him, want us to agree to a reorganization of his ministry, when the first initiative he takes is to shuffle off the very responsibility we have been asked to confer upon him?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: With all respect, Mr. Speaker, I thought I had answered that in one of my previous responses. There were a variety of options presented to us, as I am sure the member can appreciate.

Mr. Renwick: Why did you choose the wrong one?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: One option was a total realignment of programs bringing them under the Ministry of Labour. The second option was partial realignment of some programs.

Mr. Mackenzie: There is no realignment.

Mr. McClellan: It’s going to be chaos as usual.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Frankly, we felt and I felt there was too much time spent in the realignment process and not enough time spent dealing with the issue. The programs are in place. They can be utilized while they are still in the place they are, and time need not be taken in the realignment process to achieve the goals we had in mind.

DISCOUNT PRACTICES

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food regarding the food price inquiry. It has probably come to the minister’s attention that Mr. Hull is now taking a slightly more aggressive line in his questioning, but he has been refused information with regard to the discounting and kickback practices by the president of Loblaws, Mr. Nichol.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You wanted him fired.

Mr. S. Smith: It is amazing how it got him going. He was alerted for the first time in this commission.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You wanted him fired.

Mr. Speaker: The question, please.

Mr. S. Smith: If the Premier insists on interjecting, I feel I should at least respond to these interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just ignore the interjections.

Mr. S. Smith: It is hard to ignore the Premier, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s true. That’s something you should learn.

Mr. S. Smith: I will attempt to. I will do my best.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That’s not good enough.

Mr. S. Smith: I can assure the Premier that this is a domestic matter. He is allowed to express an opinion on this matter.

Since Mr. Nichol refuses to give this information, does the minister not agree it is time the government expressed a view, before this matter goes any further, that all the information pertinent to the discounting practices, the size of the kickbacks and so on, must be obtained by the commission with subpoena, examining documents and with all means necessary to do so and must be made public? Isn’t it time to express that view?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I never cease to be amazed at the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. MacDonald: Just answer the question.

Hon. W. Newman: I will answer the question. You just be quiet.

Mr. Breaugh: We are just trying to help you.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

[10:30]

Hon. W. Newman: Both parties opposite wanted a royal commission and they have got a royal commission. The Leader of the Opposition wanted the lawyer fired the other day. The lawyer has come on very strong on Loblaws. I don’t know how lawyers operate. I’m not a lawyer, and I never know how they operate, but they do have strategies, I guess, on how they work and how they do things.

If the honourable member is so concerned -- and I understand he is going to make a presentation -- he has the right to ask to have legal counsel down there. Why does he not have his own people there asking some questions if he is really showing concern about it? He could have one of his legal people down there. He just has to go down and ask. All he wants to do is talk. The honourable member has certain rights if he wants to use them and not for political purposes.

The judge has the right and has the power under the order in council over a wide range of things that he can do. It’s up to him to decide what he is going to do, and I’m not going to tell the royal commission how they must conduct themselves.

Mr. S. Smith: Since it is perfectly evident that they don’t have a leg to stand on in their contention that these discount matters must be kept confidential for the sake of the fear of competitive information being given out, why doesn’t the minister, if he has any interest at all in the success of this commission -- which I seriously doubt -- at least express the opinion and the view, albeit that the judge will make the final decision, that the commission should take every means possible, including subpoena, to obtain the information on the kickback practices and, furthermore, to make it public? Express a view; have some courage.

Hon. W. Newman: The honourable member is asking me to tell the judge what to do. That’s exactly what he is doing; he is asking me to tell the judge what to do. The judge knows how to get the facts; he knows the way to get them. In the final analysis, when this commission is finished, I think they will have all the facts and figures they want and need.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a twofold supplementary for the minister. What is the point of the minister asking either the Liberal Party or the New Democratic Party or anybody else to have a counsel down there when the Ontario Federation of Agriculture counsel is cut off half the time when he tries to pursue questions? He is cut off by Rodney Hull. That’s my first question.

Secondly, when Loblaws president Nichol came before the standing committee on resources development last year and he was asked questions on discounts, he answered them; in fact, he was very open and was going to tell us everything in a very grandiloquent way. Isn’t his refusal to give that information now absolute stonewalling of the operation? If the commission isn’t willing to do something about the stonewalling, will the minister not do something?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, taking these questions in reverse order: As far as Mr. Nichol or anyone else refusing to give information is concerned, I understand there was some information given by him at the hearing the other day, off the top of his head.

Mr. MacDonald: Why was it off the top of his head?

Hon. W. Newman: A document was filed, which I understand has been checked out by the commission. We have a legal counsel sitting at the commission also asking some questions. We are very interested in what goes on. As far as I am concerned, we want to make sure that everything is done correctly, but I refuse to tell the judge and the counsel what to do.

To answer the first part of the honourable member’s question regarding the legal counsel for the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, if the member had the integrity or sent one of his people down to watch those hearings, he would know the reason counsel gets cut off is that he is out of order.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, is the minister, the man who is supposed to be standing up or the farmers and the consumers, saying to this House that he feels that he is legally precluded from expressing a view on the matter? We’re not saying he should tell the judge what to do. Does he say he’s legally precluded from expressing a view on the matter? If not, why doesn’t he have the courage to express a view on the matter?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, that isn’t what I said at all. I said a royal commission has been appointed and is looking into the matter. I am as interested in it as the member is or anybody else is --

Mr. MacDonald: Your procedures are phoney.

Hon. W. Newman: -- and if he would stop trying to make politics out of it, as he did the other day, it would let them get on with their job.

Mr. Makarchuk: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. In view of the fact the judges’ or commissioners’ reports from past commissions have been rather predictable, would the minister not consider cancelling this inquiry to stop wasting more public funds?

An hon. member: It is a copout the way you are doing it.

Mr. Cassidy: Either make it work or don’t do it at all.

Mr. S. Smith: Express a view.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, all I can say in answer to the members over there is, they asked for it, and now they want to cancel it. They never know where they are going.

Mr. MacDonald: Do you know where you are going?

Mr. Foulds: Nowhere.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr. Cassidy: Now that it is clear the Ontario Manpower Commission will work through other ministries rather than working on its own, Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Education regarding the very sharp decline in enrolments in a number of important technical subjects over the course of the last couple of years in the high schools of the province.

Can the minister explain why it is that there has been a 15 per cent drop in grade nine and 10 students in drafting over the course of the years 1976 to 1978? That is a drop of about 6,500 students. Since machinists are so vital in the province, can she explain why there has been a drop of nine per cent, or about 3,300 students, in machine shop practice in those early years of high school; since the aircraft industry is important, why there has been a drop of 67 per cent, or 360 students, in students taking courses in aircraft; or why there has been a drop of 1,800 students, or 22.5 per cent, in the grade nine and 10 students taking automobile servicing in order to start to become mechanics?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious there is an interest in the skills-related area which is evinced by the students who graduate from secondary schools in their applications to community colleges.

I would remind the honourable member that there has been a significant drop in the numbers of students attending secondary school. I am also aware that in some specific schools there has been a problem with the scheduling of the curriculum in a way that makes it possible for the students to participate at the kind of level that would be appropriate in certain of the technical areas.

I have been doing my best over the past 10 months to talk to headmasters, to school boards and to those responsible for the development of curriculum schedules, to modify the kind of programming that is done in order to ensure the appropriate arrangements are made to permit the students a kind of educational program that will encourage them to become involved in those kinds of subjects the honourable member is talking about.

Mr. Cassidy: Can the minister explain why it is students were involved in these courses two years ago, but there are far fewer of them in these courses today, particularly when the overall decline in secondary school enrolments between 1976 and 1978 was only one quarter of one per cent? Will the minister not agree that her ministry should be doing a great deal now to stimulate interest and involvement by students in these technical subjects in order that we have a supply of skilled manpower to fill Ontario’s industrial needs over the course of the 1980s?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am just delighted to hear the honourable leader of the third party endorse the activity I have been actively involved in for the last six months.

Mr. Martel: You are so far behind the times.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question: Given that one of the main reasons a lot of students are not taking these programs is that they have been told by the secondary school staff that they cannot guarantee they will be able to continue the program for the full four or five years, is the minister prepared to make any provisions to assist school boards to guarantee students that if they start a program they are going to be able to finish it?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it is the role of the school board to co-operate in this function, and it has been my role over the last several months to ensure the school hoards are aware of the needs to ensure continuity of the programs and to attempt to assist them in making that assurance by providing some extra assistance in the area of technical education in the budget allocations for school boards this year.

I have also been involved in many discussions with the technical directors, with technical teachers and with the teachers’ federation, which is responsible for representing them, to alert them to the need for an emphasis on this kind of educational program which equals the kind of emphasis given to academic programs which have been traditional within the school system.

We are trying our best to ensure that the students who want to become involved in this kind of program will have that opportunity and, as a result, we have introduced eight new programs which will maintain continuity, not only within the secondary school program but in the post-secondary program as well, and we intend to expand that program within the next several months.

Mr. Bradley: Same old story.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, it isn’t.

Mr. Cassidy: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker: If I can bring the minister’s rhetoric down to specifics, what has the Ministry of Education done to restore the industrial arts program at the Chapleau High School, a matter I raised in this Legislature about six or seven weeks ago, in order that students in that particular isolated area of northern Ontario can have access to any form of technical courses at all?

What has the Ministry of Education done in the case of a large number of technical high schools or composite high schools across the province, where the equipment they are using is becoming more and more out of date compared with what is used in industry outside and the school boards cannot afford to get decent equipment because of the cutbacks?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the specific problem of the Chapleau High School is being investigated by the northern regional office, and I presume that report will be coming to me in a very few days.

The problem the member raises regarding the kind of equipment that is present within the secondary school system is one we have attempted to make at least a step towards resolving by the additional funds which were provided for that purpose this year, and it is our intention to move further in succeeding years in that area.

There is also intensive activity taking place in a number of communities in the area of co-operative educational programs which will ensure that the equipment the students will be taught upon is the latest of equipment which most school boards could not possibly keep up with in any kind of a very generous delivery of funds to the school system.

The community colleges have the same kinds of problems. It is not possible to ensure that the latest generation of specific equipment is present within the educational institution. It is more important to make certain that the kind of equipment which provides the basic and generalist knowledge for the student is there, that it is in good condition and that the newer and more specialized equipment is available to the students through co-operative education programs with the co-operation of employers within the community. That is one of the directions in which we are working.

LIQUOR REGULATIONS

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Would the minister justify the 50-50 ratio under which dining lounges such as Willy’s Wine Bar, in my riding of Ottawa Centre, have to sell as much food as liquor in each month in view of the recent massive increases in the price of wine? Isn’t a result of those massive increases in the price of wine that an establishment like Willy’s Wine Bar has no choice but to inflate the price of food to maintain the ministry’s ratios?

Mr. Peterson: They are putting the price of food up. What are you worried about?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I draw to the attention of the honourable member -- and I would have thought he would have known this -- that the price of food is rising twice as fast as the price of wine. So, a 50-50 ratio, in terms of selling food, actually is a break.

Mr. Peterson: Why don’t you bring them down?

Mr. Cassidy: Since Willy’s Wine Bar opened up in November 1978, I think it is news to everyone in this House that the price of food has gone up as quickly as the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario wine prices over the course of those six months.

Is the minister aware that this particular licensee, who is now required to appear before the liquor licence board on July 26 here in Toronto, was told by a board inspector, “Things will go much better for you in Toronto if you do not talk to the press”? Will the minister step in to stop this kind of harassment and ensure that a small business that is trying to get established can get a decent break?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I want to make it extremely explicit that, number one, I think it would be highly improper, and I would never interfere with a proceeding of the liquor licence board.

Mr. MacDonald: What about your inspectors?

[10:45]

Hon. Mr. Drea: Will the member please calm himself down?

I am deeply disturbed by that type of allegation. I will look into the matter. At no time will I, as the minister responsible to this House for the liquor licence board, or any other part of my ministry, countenance an attempt at silencing a person, a small business or a corporation, from expressing free comment or from stating a case to the public in any way.

Mr. Swart: Will you examine their political affiliation?

Mr. Cassidy: Can the minister explain why it is that an establishment like Vine’s Wine Bar in Toronto can advertise itself as being “truly reminiscent of a London wine bar”? -- that’s an established wine bar -- but an establishment like Willy’s in Ottawa, which has been trying to get off the ground and is running into great difficulties with the ministry, should have its advertisements in the local press monitored on a regular basis by the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario inspectors and be sent letters telling the establishment it is not to use copy references to “a wine bar” and “a downstairs bar”?

Is it normal that high-priced inspectors of the LLBO should be monitoring the local press to see whether each apostrophe in each word of every advertisement is going to be correctly used or not?

Hon. Mr. Drea: The leader of the New Democratic Party knows perfectly well that one of the jurisdictions of the liquor licence board is control over advertising -- not just advertising of the product but signs, public advertisements and so on.

About this wine place in Toronto the member speaks of in comparison with some wine bar in London, England, I don’t know. I’ve never been in a wine bar. That must have been one that escaped me. I really don’t know what the member is talking about. If he is complaining that the place in Ottawa is being harassed, I will look into it. But I will tell the member there are certain places in Ontario whose ads the minister monitors. They know what they can put in an advertisement; they know what they are specifically forbidden to put in an advertisement, and they are going to conform to the law.

Perhaps the leader of the third party is asking me to make a special dispensation for the Ottawa wine bar because it can not sell enough food. When it made an application -- if I understand the member correctly, it opened last year -- it was cautioned it might lose its licence if it did not conform to the 50-50 food ratio. Now, if I understand correctly, it says that because of the increase in the price of wine it cannot sell enough food. However, the price of food has been going up at twice the rate of alcohol price increases in the last year, and they are going to have to conform to the law.

[Later (11:22):]

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, earlier in the question period the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations stated the price of food had gone up at twice the rate of the price of wine. The price of food -- I have checked the figures -- has gone up by 17 per cent in the past year, but we were unable yesterday to get any index on the increase in the price of wine from the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. I cannot see how the minister can make that claim, particularly when many wines doubled in price on April 30 of this year.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, from the time of the licensing of that establishment I will stand by the statement I made. It was licensed last year when there was a freeze on the price of wine. It operated for quite a considerable period of time with wine subsidized by the taxpayers of the province because of that fact. It is a well-known fact how much the price of food has gone up, particularly institutional food, because of the difficulty in obtaining fresh produce during the wintertime.

If the member wants statistics, his informant should give me her order. I want to know what wine she is buying. I presume she feels too good to buy Ontario wine. I could give her that off the top of my head. If she will provide me with a list of the particular brands of wines she has bought, I will send her a letter.

[Reverting (10:43):]

REVIEW OF BILL 100

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education arising out of the strike of secondary school teachers in Haldimand county in this school year. The students were out of school for a two-month period, and it came to light that the students did not have rights with regard to their education.

Can the minister tell us when she is going to make public the results of the long internal review of Bill 100?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the internal review of Bill 100 is now almost complete. I have discussed the potential activity following the internal review with members of the Council of School Trustees Associations, the Ontario Teachers’ Federation and the Council of Home and School Federations of Ontario. It is possible we shall be establishing a multipartite external committee to examine the findings of Bill 100 results over the last several years to try to determine whether there should be major or even minor modifications of the act.

I should like to assure the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller) that one of the problems related to the difficulty he has talked about, the dispute between the teachers and the board in that area, had its roots in a very long-standing attitude of confrontation without resolution of problems.

The Education Relations Commission has informed both parties in this area that it would be delighted to participate in a preventive mediation activity, now that the strike is settled, to ensure that all those problems which seemed to be lighting the brush fires that caused the dispute to degenerate into a strike could be removed before the next set of negotiations begins. I am very hopeful that that activity will take place.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Is the minister reviewing the responsibilities of the Education Relations Commission with regard to the rights of the students? Will there be a closer connection there so that the rights will be protected?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is a necessary activity in the review of Bill 100.

Mr. S. Smith: The government can’t agree on human rights.

Mr. Cunningham: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I would like to ask the minister how she can justify touring around the province with this internal report and not take it upon herself to table this report in the Legislature, where it belongs? She has discussed it with everybody else. Why can’t she table it in the Legislature?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I have not discussed the report with the other parties that I mentioned. I discussed with them the possibility of the establishment of a multipartite external committee to examine the report when it is ready. It is not as yet ready.

Mr. S. Smith: The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and you cannot agree.

CHEESE PRODUCTION

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food -- if he will stall his departure for a minute -- about the cheese industry in the province of Ontario. Is he aware of just how serious the decline in that industry is, in particular in cheddar cheese? In the past 25 years Ontario’s share of Canadian production has dropped from 93 per cent to 33 per cent and there are now only about 65 cheese factories left in Ontario, compared with about 1,200 at the turn of the century.

Does the minister agree that this is extremely serious, both in terms of the lost job opportunities in that industrial sector and in the very serious trade deficit of almost $60 million last year?

Mr. Riddell: Pull out one of your old speeches.

Mr. Nixon: Blame the feds.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to answer this question, because quite obviously the member has been around here for a few years.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Too long.

Hon. W. Newman: Ever since I have been Minister of Agriculture and Food, we have seen this problem coming because of the industrial milk program across Canada and the allocation of industrial milk to the province of Ontario.

Mr. Kerrio: Federal government stuff.

Hon. W. Newman: Sure it is; I’m not changing my mind just because the government has done it. I know they will know how to handle it.

Mr. S. Smith: What have they done so far?

Mr. Swart: You will eat those words.

Hon. W. Newman: Coming back to cheddar cheese, I am very concerned about the industrial milk supply to the province of Ontario which goes to cheese production. The Ontario Milk Marketing Board takes the industrial milk that we have allocated to the province and puts it out on various kinds of cheese. For instance, for specialty cheese there is no quota, but for cheddar cheese they do have to have a quota on it.

We have had discussions with the Milk Marketing Board over a period of time. I have been fighting for more market share quota for this province for two and a half years because I feel we need it here in this province. We don’t want to be greedy and take it away from everybody else, but we want our fair share. I have said I want a total dairy industry in this province, and I do not want the cheddar cheese industry to be out of business.

Mr. Laughren: And there you sit.

Hon. W. Newman: Sit? No.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The member knows nothing about it.

Mr. Riddell: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker; Now that we have a new Minister of Agriculture in Ottawa, has the minister made any effort to contact him to recommend to him that we are going to have to take some of Quebec’s allocation and some of Alberta’s allocation away from them in order to give it to Ontario so that we can produce the cheese to meet the market that he says there is for it?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have every confidence in the new Minister of Agriculture in Ottawa, and I know that he knows the problem. I have discussed it many times in advance of his taking over, because I knew he was going to take over. So he knows full well the problem. He knows -- at least I think he knows -- there has to be a better distribution of MSQ when there is one province not using its total allocation. I’m not picking on any one of our sister provinces, but I know and the member knows which one it is.

Mr. Bradley: But having said that.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We know which one it is.

Hon. W. Newman: When one province can ship all the milk it wants to ship and doesn’t totally utilize its quotas, it’s time there was some adjustment in the system. They should lose some of that quota if they’re not going to utilize it, and give it to someone who can utilize it.

Here in Ontario we have gone through a very difficult time as far as the cheddar cheese people are concerned.

Mr. Nixon: We lost ours because we didn’t utilize it. That’s how we lost it.

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker; Have the minister and his officials done any work at all on the potentially increased markets, particularly for cheddar cheese, with the European Economic Community as a result of the GATT negotiations which should give us increased opportunities for exports of cheddar cheese and which would enable us to easily wipe out the deficit we now face?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, it’s quite obvious the member doesn’t know the price of cheddar cheese in the European Economic Community, what it would sell for and the sort of tariff barriers in the agricultural community over there. If the member doesn’t understand that, I’ll explain it to him.

Mr. Laughren: I know a lot more about that than you do.

Hon. W. Newman: We could send a boatload of cheese over to the EEC market tomorrow and before that boatload would land in the EEC, they could have moved the tariff up to the point where it was almost impossible to deal with.

Mr. Laughren: As a result of GATT.

Hon. W. Newman: Just a minute. After the GATT negotiations they will allow so many million pounds in --

Mr. Breaugh: Why do you give up so easily?

Hon. W. Newman: -- which we will have no trouble fulfilling at all.

Mr. Breaugh: Why don’t you fight for it?

Hon. W. Newman: We’ll have no trouble fulfilling that quota -- and more, if they would let us do it.

Mr. Laughren: We don’t have the factories.

Hon. W. Newman: We don’t have them in the province of Ontario because we don’t have the milk. The member knows where it is. It comes from Canada. It has to come from Canada.

Mr. Laughren: And you sit there. What are you going to do about it?

Mr. O’Neil: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the minister a supplementary? I wonder if he could tell us, in his discussions with the new federal minister, what comments the new federal minister made as to what he was going to do to correct the problem?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, there is a federal-provincial conference which will be held in about three weeks’ time. There also is a national supply and management committee working right now looking at the total picture of national supply and management of industrial milk. If the member reads Farm and Country, he’ll see the Conservative policy, and I’m quite sure he will carry it out.

COURT FACILITIES

Mr. O’Neil: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General. I wonder if I could ask him if he would have his officials investigate the shortage of criminal court facilities in the city of Belleville, in the Quinte area, where over the past few years the caseload in these courts has increased substantially, resulting in unnecessary delays, changes in scheduling and many other additional pressures?

I might also add space is available but funds have not been forthcoming for renovations and furniture.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, the caseloads have increased dramatically in almost every area of the province, but I will be very happy to look into the situation to which the member refers. I will get back to him as to what we are doing specifically in that area to relieve the caseload and in relation to any additional facilities that may be coming on-stream in the near future.

Mr. O’Neil: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: When the Attorney General’s officials are investigating the shortage of facilities, would he also consider the appointment of additional judges for both the provincial and criminal courts and an additional full-time assistant crown attorney and the staff to assist in these positions?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: These matters will be taken into consideration, Mr. Speaker.

CHEMICALS IN SCHOOLYARD

Mr. M. Davidson: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of the Environment. The minister will recall a question I raised with him regarding soil contamination at Manchester Public School in Cambridge. Is the minister aware that blood tests have shown two pupils to have lead levels in excess of what is considered to be normal? That is two pupils out of a total of 22 children and teachers who have been tested in that school. Will he give us his assurance that, given these lead levels have in fact, been found to be excessive, further tests will be carried out on the other children in that school to ensure their health is protected?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Yes, I will, Mr. Speaker.

[11: 00]

Mr. M. Davidson: A supplementary: Can the minister then tell us why it would be that his official in Cambridge, Mr. Mike Caranci, has indicated publicly that tests will be discontinued if readings do not show higher levels than they have done at the present time? Can he also tell us if the provincial government has an effective method of testing nickel content in human beings, given that nickel, which has also been found in the soil, is potentially more harmful than any of the other metals?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: We took some tests a while back and the tests were within normal range. Subsequent tests were taken with more stringent controls and there was a slight elevation over normal standards. On that basis, we were prepared to do further testing.

As for the details of how we are able to test for nickel, I’m afraid I don’t have that technical expertise. I’d be glad to give it to the member. I don’t know whether we have the capabilities for testing for nickel; I suspect we do. I know we have great capabilities for testing for all heavy metal and, I suspect, nickel is included. But to make a yes or no answer I’ll have to confirm that later.

LAURENTIAN HOSPITAL

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, last week the member for Sudbury brought to my attention a matter concerning Laurentian Hospital and one of its employees who was receiving workmen’s compensation benefits and who, it is alleged, was subjected to surveillance by a private investigator engaged by the employer.

I’ve discussed the member’s question with the Workmen’s Compensation Board and I am advised by them it is very rare for evidence obtained by such investigators to be tendered at board hearings. Where such evidence is tendered, it is the board’s obligation to rule on its admissibility, and if it is found by the board to be admissible, to give it only such weight as it sees fit.

It is important to realize that the board, as a quasi-judicial administrative tribunal, is obliged to act in its adjudication upon what is admissible as proper evidence, bearing in mind that in so doing its rulings may be subject to judicial review by the courts. I, therefore, don’t believe it would be proper for me to attempt to instruct the board on my own personal views as to its right to accept evidence in any given case so long as the board subjects such evidence to careful scrutiny. I also do not believe any useful purpose can be served by expressing my personal view on the role of private investigators who are retained to gather evidence for use in litigation.

Mr. Warner: That board’s out of control.

Mr. Laughren: The minister leads it around by the nose.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: It is well known that the use of such investigators is widespread in all forms of civil litigation and the courts have always made it clear that such evidence must be subjected to careful examination and scrutiny. If, in the course of gathering that evidence, investigators act in an unlawful manner, there is a legal remedy.

Whether evidence obtained under such circumstances is admissible, or is in some way tainted by the illegal conduct, would be a matter to be determined by the tribunal. I don’t believe the member’s question alleges any such illegal activity in the case, but if such an allegation is intended I can only repeat what I have said as to the possible legal consequences.

I might add that I know of no jurisdiction anywhere where the right of any party to a contested matter to rely upon evidence obtained by a private investigator has been outlawed.

Mr. Germa: A supplementary: Setting aside the activity of a private eye, as a minister of the crown would he care to make a statement as it relates to the use of public funds -- Health dollars -- for this kind of activity on behalf of the administrator of that hospital?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: As I’ve tried to outline in my answer, I think there are three issues: The first is it’s not illegal to retain a private investigator to do this sort of activity. The courts, in all jurisdictions, have clearly said so.

Second is the issue of what that evidence is worth. There the courts have clearly said they must make two decisions: it is admissible; and how much deference should we give to it, in view of the fact --

Mr. Warner: They’re spending public funds to spy on workers.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: -- it’s evidence purchased for a particular purpose?

As to the question of whether or not a public body should use funds to retain such investigators, that’s a difficult question. Certainly, funds are given to bodies such as hospitals to run their hospital efficiently. If they have an honest and reasonable belief that someone is trying to mislead them with regard to some aspects, the issue is whether they have the right to investigate it. It’s a very difficult issue, I admit that. I would have to ask the Minister of Health whether or not he thinks it is appropriate for a hospital board to use that, but certainly the hospital boards are relatively independent bodies and do have decisions to make themselves.

Mr. Germa: Further supplementary: Is the minister saying the investigative branch of the Workmen’s Compensation Board is not capable of doing a proper investigation into a claim and that it needs to be second-guessed by private eyes?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: No, I am not saying that at all. I’m saying that the Workmen’s Compensation Board, at the appeal stage and at the adjudication stage, receives information from a variety of sources: one, from its own investigation; second, from remarks or evidence or information submitted by the employee or the worker; and other information submitted, if the claim is contested, by the employer. There is a variety of sources of information. That was what my comments related to.

MILK PRICES

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, last Friday the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) asked some questions concerning the pricing of fluid milk during the conversion to metric cartons by the Borden Company Limited in Ottawa.

Mr. Conway: Elsie, the Borden cow. Frank, go easy.

Hon. Mr. Drea: There were three questions involved in this. I can get rid of two of them right away.

One of the questions involved the fact that the two-litre container did not have an equivalent imperial measurement on it. Had the company done that it would have been contrary to the law.

The only time in metric conversion that a container or package is allowed to use both the imperial and the metric numbers is while the imperial sized package remains. That is called soft conversion. Once the metric container, for either liquids or solids, is on the market, only the metric measurement may remain on it. That is called hard conversion. That is the law of Canada.

I notice, by the way, the honourable member has his cartons on his desk. He forgot to give them to me last week.

Mr. Makarchuk: There’s cheese in there now.

Mr. Conway: There’s a terrible smell.

Hon. Mr. Drea: The member was also apparently set up by the person who purported to give him the Borden wholesale prices. They are incorrect.

Mr. Warner: A clerical error.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I have from the Borden company their wholesale milk prices in October, in January and in April. Somebody set up the dear honourable member because the prices he gave were not correct. The member said the conversion of the two-quart carton to a two-litre carton resulted in a four-cent drop in price. That is wrong. it resulted in a five-cent drop in price; he had the wrong figures.

Mr. McClellan: I think that clerk is a Tory.

Hon. Mr. Drea: The basis for that drop was that in January the price to dairies of two quarts of two per cent milk in its raw form was 58.9 cents. When converted to litres, the price of the raw milk dropped to 51.8 cents, a reduction of seven cents. The price scale-down was based only upon the raw material in the container, not the cost of container or other matters. Borden dropped the price by five cents at that time. Because of a new labour agreement with the Teamsters union signed on exactly the same day, there was a 1.1 cent additional increase put on each litre, or about two cents on the two-litre container.

It is a matter of record that when the general milk price increase came in at the end of April this year the Borden company would have been entitled to an almost eight cents increase on that two-litre container, had it followed the practice of the rest of the industry. It did not. It raised it only six cents.

To date the Borden company has passed on, to within a fraction of a penny, the exact reduction of the raw material, which is the milk, coming about from the conversion from imperial to metric measurements.

I would like to draw to the attention of the honourable member that the Metric Commission of Canada was consulted by the Borden company prior to the introduction of this new package. Secondly, the federal Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, whose representatives sit on the metric commission, also knew about this.

In view of the fact that the words “price-gouge,” “hoodwinked” and “gouge” appear in the record, I would certainly hope the honourable member, now that he has the facts, would put this matter into perspective.

Mr. Swart: By way of supplementary, I will put it into perspective and say it is the minister who has been set up. Is he not aware the Milk Act specifically permits the province to determine the labelling, including, if they wish, to put on the content in both litres and quarts? May I quote the

section of the act?

Section 49: “The Ontario Milk Commission may make regulations respecting the advertising in respect of the labelling of containers for fluid milk product, or any class of fluid milk product.” They may put the imperial measurement on.

I would also ask the minister, in his role as the apologist for Borden Company Limited and particularly justifying the 10 per cent increase -- and it was a 10 per cent hike in milk prices because of the increase, which he says were because of their increased costs -- can he explain why all three dairies in the Thunder Bay area have been able to change over with less than one half the price increase of Borden’s in Ottawa?

Can the minister explain why the wholesale price of a two-litre carton in Thunder Bay charged by all of these local dairies is $1.21 compared to $1.31 for Borden’s, even though they pay four per cent more for the milk in northern Ontario?

Finally, how can he justify the increase on the basis of additional packaging costs, because this two-litre container is slightly smaller than the old two-quart container, as he will agree?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a four-part question. I think that is enough for the moment. Does the honourable minister have a response?

Mr. Swart: Can I please finish?

Mr. Mackenzie: What’s the matter? Are you afraid of the question?

Hon. Mr. Drea: First of all, the approximate one cent increase per litre or two cents per two-litre package was not based on increased packaging cost, it was based on having to meet the increased cost negotiated by the Teamsters union in the contract at that time.

Mr. Swart: Why didn’t the rest of the milk go up by the same amount? It was only the litre that went up.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Drea: It is extremely difficult to keep track of the incoherent questions of the honourable member. I will try to answer them if he will only put them in order.

There are different milk prices in effect in northern Ontario, in Ottawa, in Toronto and a great number of areas in the province.

Will he send me over what he purports to be the wholesale prices? I caution him again before he gets extravagant, he may be facing a lawsuit on this. I am trying to be easy.

Mr. MacDonald: You may be facing a lawsuit on some things Frank. Wait until the transmission companies are finished with you.

Mr. Swart: Is that a threat through the company you are giving to me?

Mr. McClellan: Why don’t you let their lawyers make their threats for them?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Not from me. No, it is not.

Mr. Speaker: Just answer the question. Never mind the interjections.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple and fundamental case. In the metric conversion the company reduced the amount of milk in the container. On the conversion it passed on, in the first instance, all but one cent of the saving on the litre. When the general price increase came through at the end of April it passed on the rest, because it didn’t take what it could have taken.

No matter how much the member tries to fudge this or camouflage this, or run it around the end or try to talk about Thunder Bay -- he was dead wrong last week. If he wants me to look at Thunder Bay, I would be absolutely delighted to do so, but I suggest to him, before he uses the words price gouging, hoodwinking and some other things where he goes out deliberately, because of his certain type of mentality, to try and ruin a company’s good name, he should be sure of his facts.

ONTARIO HOME RENEWAL PROGRAM

Mr. Bradley: I have a question for the Premier in the absence of the Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett).

At the present time an individual may have what is called an adjusted family income of no more than $12,500 to qualify for the Ontario Home Renewal Program. Since this qualification has not changed since the beginning of the program in 1974, would the Premier not agree that thousands of people who were eligible for the OHRP at its inception are now excluded since the eligible income level has not been raised for five years? If he does agree with that, would he assure the House he will take the necessary steps to immediately update this qualification?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member’s former leader says “Certainly.” Why didn’t the member ask him? It’s always easy to be more generous in opposition than in government.

Mr. Nixon: You are not generous at all.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, we are. We are so generous it is embarrassing on occasion. Listen, the member’s leader has become so generous, I just noticed in the paper this morning, he’s prepared to give a 30 or 40 per cent --

[11:15]

Mr. Speaker: Would you like to move over and have a nice little chat?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I guess we could, Mr. Speaker, it’s that time of day.

Mr. Speaker: Then we can get on with the business of question period.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, we haven’t really done that totally in the past hour, why should I be any exception? I will try to answer the question; I understand.

Mr. Cunningham: Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The qualification level has not altered. I think it really isn’t as simplistic as that. The qualification level could change but, depending on the total amount of funding, that might not be as relevant as how much money is available. So, if the level of qualification were moved up and the funding were to remain the same it isn’t necessarily the people who need it the most who will get it. With the level of funding that presently exists, probably the qualification level is logical at this moment, but I’m quite prepared to discuss it with the minister as long as the member understands that there are limitations on total amount of money available in this program.

Mr. Bradley: Supplementary: Of course we understand that, but I guess I should ask, does he understand? The point we make is that the same number of people today would be eligible if that level were raised. Would the Premier give us some assurance that when he is discussing this with the Minister of Housing, at least the inflation rate in the last five years will be taken into account?

Hon. Mr. Davis: We always take into account many things, not just the inflation rate. I certainly will raise that with the minister, but I caution the honourable member not to raise his expectations in terms of the amount of funding that will be available for this particular program. We think it’s excellent, but there are limitations on total dollars available.

BOISE CASCADE DISPUTE

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Attorney General, who I’m told is lurking in the precincts somewhere, I would like to address a question to the Provincial Secretary for Justice.

Is the minister aware that in the court cases currently being held in Kenora over the last few days, of the 34 charges heard up until 10 o’clock last night that had been laid by both the town and the provincial police for alleged incidents on the picket lines during the strike of Boise Cascade by the lumber and sawmill workers, 10 of those charges had been withdrawn, 16 charges dismissed, two charges resulted in conditional discharge and only six resulted in convictions the penalties for five of which were fines of less than $100?

Does he not feel it is plainly evident that when four fifths of the charges laid have been found to be unjustified there was a clear harassment of the picketers by the OPP and the town police and they used frivolous charges to remove men from the picket lines for up to seven months? Does he not find that use of police as strike breakers an unfair thing to do and something that should not be condemned by this government?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I think I would be wise to refer that matter to the Attorney General for a more detailed answer.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: Can the minister, while he is consulting with the chief law officer of the crown, indicate why one of the strikers, one Robert Dale Lougheed, who was charged and during the course of the charge was kept from the precincts of Boise Cascade property but, when he decided to cross the picket line, even though the charge had not been withdrawn, it was suddenly all right for him to go near Boise property and work on it? Can he clarify that point in law?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I will include that in my discussion with the Attorney General, yes.

ILLEGAL DUMPING OF LIQUID WASTE

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I’ll ask your guidance on this. I believe there is a matter of privilege here. Three months ago, in this House I asked of the Minister of the Environment certain information, including copies of any inspection certificates of sites that had accepted hazardous waste and site inspection certificates for the Upper Ottawa Street dump. You will appreciate, sir, that the only way one can check on illegal dumping is by an actual inspection report by an inspector who actually looks at the place.

That question was repeated several times. Today, three months later, I have received from the minister some answers to various questions and, at the bottom, by way of answering the question on site inspection certificates, the minister says: “Response to this question will be forthcoming in due course.”

Site inspection certificates exist, or they don’t exist. They can be produced, I would imagine, for someone to look at, to see if there is illegality going on. For three months to go by with repeated demands and letters and questions and then to be told the day we are rising for the summer they will be forthcoming in due course, seems to me an abuse of the spirit of the idea of question and answer in this assembly, if not the actual regulation in law.

Of course, the question comes to mind as to what the ministry is hiding, but apart from that, the question is why does the minister not show more respect for us as elected representatives? I must answer to my constituents, who tell me arsenic and various things have gone into these dumps and I can’t answer their questions if I can’t look at those reports. I can’t do my job properly if I am not given access to these matters.

I would ask you. Mr. Speaker, to take into consideration the sort of answer we have been given, after three months of waiting for these certificates.

Mr. Speaker: It is really not a point of privilege. The minister can answer in any way he sees fit and deems proper and one can only assume he is still seeking the information or, conversely, he chooses not to answer. You have to draw your own conclusions from that. It is not within the purview of the Speaker to demand action from a minister of the crown.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Not speaking to the point of privilege, but I did send the information I now wish to table to the Leader of the Opposition earlier this morning. I want to put on the table, sir, the details of this material we have now in reply to the questions previously asked.

Mr. S. Smith: He is not speaking to the point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. In fact, what he is tabling is the information he sent me, which includes the offensive answer which I read to you, saying the information is coming in due course.

Mr. Speaker: What I said earlier still applies.

Mr. S. Smith: I understand, Mr. Speaker.

REPORTS

FOREIGN PURCHASES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND

Hon. W. Newman presented the report on foreign ownership of agricultural land in Kent and Huron counties.

Hon. W. Newman: There has been a great deal of discussion in the Legislature on the alleged sale of Ontario agricultural land to foreign buyers. My ministry has prepared a report, as I promised, on Kent and Huron counties. We also assembled the figures for all other counties in Ontario, showing the amount of land held by owners nonresident in Canada. Today I would like to submit this report to the Legislature.

From the data, it appears very little Ontario agricultural land is owned by nonresident people.

Mr. Riddell: Over three per cent.

Hon. W. Newman: However, if the members have any additional information, now or in the future, I should appreciate their passing it along to me, and I will have it looked into.

The information in this report came from government records.

Mr. Gaunt: We will continue to do your work for you.

Hon. W. Newman: My ministry will continue to monitor this most important matter and will update the information regularly.

An hon. member: We will give you some of ours.

Hon. W. Newman: Why don’t you give it to me then? I have asked you for it. Give it to me.

Mr. Nixon: We will give it to you, Bill.

STANDING ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE COMMITTEE

Mr. Renwick from the standing administration of justice committee presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr13,

An Act respecting Massey Hall;

Bill Pr14,

An Act to Revive the January School as Montcrest School;

Bill Pr16,

An Act respecting the Trustees of the Windsor Grove Cemetery.

Your committee recommends that the fees less the actual cost of printing be remitted on the following bills:

Bill Pr13,

An Act respecting Massey Hall;

Bill Pr14,

An Act to revive the January School as Montcrest School.

Report adopted.

SUMMER RECESS

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that when the House adjourns today it stand adjourned until Wednesday, October 10, on which day the committees will sit as scheduled. The House will sit in the chamber on Thursday, October 11, provided that if it appears to Mr. Speaker after advice from the government that the public interest requires the House to meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice. Should Mr. Speaker be unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole House shall act in his stead for the purposes of this order.

Motion agreed to.

STANDING RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that on the request of the standing resources development committee the committee while sitting during the summer recess to consider the Hydro matter referred to it may, if necessary, ask Mr. Speaker through the office of the clerk to issue his warrant or warrants for the attendance of a witness or witnesses.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, the motion I think is a relatively important one since that committee has directed to it by the Legislature a review of the contracts between Hydro and the Babcock and Wilcox corporation having to do with the boilers that have been so much a subject of interest and importance in this House.

It has been brought to my attention that while a Speaker’s warrant for the compulsion of witnesses may be necessary, and therefore this motion would make it available, it is also quite possible that a Speaker’s warrant may very well be necessary for certain “papers and things” -- a phrase you know very well, sir -- that is put out in the establishment of the committee by motion. With your permission, sir, I would move an amendment to the motion.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Nixon moves an amendment to the motion placed by the government House leader, to amend it by adding “and for the production of papers and things deemed necessary by the committee.”

Hon. Mr. Welch: I don’t have any objection to that. I thought, during the discussion prior to introducing the motion, we had cleared up that matter. I thought the motion establishing the standing committees gives them that authority now and that this is simply for purposes of clarification. I think it adds nothing to the authority which the committee already has as far as papers and other materials are concerned, but certainly if this helps to clarify it we have no objection.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTION

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that substitution be permitted on the standing procedural affairs committee during the summer recess.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the motion carry?

Mr. Breaugh: No.

Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, might I point out that a change in the rules of this House requires unanimous consent.

[11:30]

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, this obviously is some indication of lack of communication. If the Speaker will allow it, perhaps later on today we can cover the specific substitutions we want to provide for now, which will be on majority rule rather than having a blanket substitution. I do apologize to the chairman of the committee. I thought this matter had been cleared.

Mr. Breaugh: No.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I ask for a ruling. It would seem the rules do require there be no substitution on the standing procedural affairs committee during the life of a parliament, except as agreed to by the House. I take it we can accomplish what we want to do, as long as we are specific. In other words, the House will by majority vote actually substitute members on the committee. We can do that without unanimous consent.

I suggest to my colleagues that we now be giving some thought to the preparation of a motion that would specifically make the substitutions before we adjourn some time today, rather than the blanket substitution previously requested.

Mr. Speaker: Without unanimous consent the motion is out of order.

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the following substitutions be made: On the standing resources development committee, Mr. J. A. Taylor for Mr. Yakabuski; on the standing administration of justice committee, Mr. Jones for Mr. Cureatz, Mr. Kennedy for Mr. Rotenberg, Mr. McCaffrey for Mr. Sterling, Mr. Ramsay for Mr. J. A. Taylor, Mr. Turner for Mr. Williams; on the select committee on company law, Mr. Handleman for Mr. Cureatz; and on the select committee on the Ombudsman, Mr. Isaacs for Mr. Grande.

Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BALLOT

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that Mr. Rotenberg be substituted for Mr. Rollins in the order of precedence for private members’ public business and that all members of the Conservative caucus listed on the new ballot be advanced by one place in their turn.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTION

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that Mr. Mancini be substituted for Mr. Haggerty on the standing procedural affairs committee.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE MEETINGS

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the following standing committees be authorized to meet during the summer recess in accordance with the

schedule of meetings agreed to by the three party whips to consider matters referred to them by the House: resources development committee, administration of justice committee, public accounts committee and procedural affairs committee.

Motion agreed to.

REDIRECTION OF BILL 100

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the order for third reading of Bill 100,

An Act respecting Local Government in the District of Parry Sound, be discharged and the bill referred back to committee of the whole House.

Mr. Nixon: I will defer to my colleague.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, we were given notice a few minutes ago that this was going to be done. I thought this House had dealt fairly adequately and completely with the various amendments that were before us the other day. I see no reason at this time why the bill should be referred back to the committee of the whole House.

The government had prided itself on having done six years of studies on this whole problem. It had every opportunity to bring in amendments. Now, in the dying hours of this session, it wants to introduce another amendment. As far as I am concerned, the government is not playing according to the way this House usually responds to the public will. I don’t think there is anything to be gained by having this matter go back to committee of the whole.

This morning I received a telegram which conveniently was not raised in this House the other day by the government; I wish they had raised it. I will read it: “Please be reminded that our association has sent over 1,000 signatures of persons opposed to the proposed single archipelago municipality to Mr. Darcy McKeough together with a registered letter on June 29, 1978. We also informed Mr. Tom Wells of this in a registered letter of October 11, 1978. We can furnish copies as well as several hundred additional names. Please relate this in the debate on third reading of Bill 100.” It was signed, “80,000 Islands Protection Association,” which is in the Parry Sound area.

I think this is important to this House. As far as I am concerned this matter should receive third reading and royal assent.

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Speaker, it has been indicated to us that third reading of this bill would not be proceeded with even though the wishes of the House have been expressed in committee of the whole and the committee had reported the bill for third reading.

We have come to an understanding that with the amendment that may be moved if the bill is returned to committee of the whole, the bill will be given third reading and that third reading will be given today.

We feel it is very important that a structure of local government be put in place in the unorganized territory located in the district of Parry Sound and that the other changes contained in this bill be proceeded with as expeditiously as possible. If this procedure assists in that, then we are prepared to support the motion.

Mr. Nixon: I have a feeling this matter may occupy us for a time -- if not this motion then perhaps what might follow.

I was surprised when the committee work was completed by votes in this House. The honourable member who was about to rise and speak, the minister who is responsible for intergovernmental affairs, had not had the responsibility for carriage of the legislation. His legislative assistant was looking after it. By the government’s perception of our rules the minister himself for some reason felt he had to be absent during that time.

I was also interested that the Premier, who is particularly interested in local government in that area, also was absent except for the vote itself. In the kind of informal exchange he sometimes participates in, he indicated his great displeasure with the way the debate had gone and the way it appeared to him the votes were going.

We pointed out to him that really it’s his responsibility and the responsibility of the minister to be sure the members of the House on all sides know the people’s views. We have canvassed the opinions of the local people. My colleague who has just spoken and the honourable member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller) went up into the area and spoke to the people directly concerned. We brought forward amendments to the government legislation which were carried in this House in the proper way.

Some members were not pleased with it, just as occasionally when the members opposite bring in certain legislation, certain votes are taken that don’t please everybody in this House. But that’s the way democracy works. After all, the matter had come to a conclusion; a decision had been made; and the matter was then referred to the House for third reading. It now stands on the order paper for that purpose.

I would hope the House could go on with third reading of the bill so that the matter can be carried on as we would expect. It is quite possible for the government, if they choose -- on proper notice -- to make an amendment on third reading. The bill would then not be read a third time but be sent back to committee for further work.

This seems to be a strange way to discharge the business of the House, and really we can’t support it.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on this motion. First of all, I really am surprised by my friend from Brant-Oxford-Norfolk. In his long history in this House he has always, I think, prided himself on listening to the wishes of the people. He represented the people of Brant township in the Brant-Brantford annexation problem very well, and in other matters has listened to the wishes of the local people.

We believe this is a very important piece of legislation. It was considered for over six years by various groups and studied in this House. It contains several parts, some having to do with the archipelago municipality, the new municipality being created out of unorganized areas. It also has some unrelated restructuring that will occur in the district of Parry Sound, all of them having been studied for a considerable length of time.

The House considered this the other day and in its wisdom by vote decided to create two new townships rather than one, as proposed in the bill and as proposed by all the experts who had studied this in the last year or so, and indeed as was wished by the local residents, permanent and summer, in the particular areas affected.

Mr. Epp: You’re omitting the Martin report of 1975-76.

Hon. Mr. Wells: My friend says I’m omitting the Martin report. He knows very well the man who wrote that report is my special assistant. If there’s one thing I get good advice on it is the Martin report, from Mr. Dave Martin, who wrote the report. That report was written with certain things in mind and certain people have come forward since then to present their views.

I’m sure my friend has received a copy of the letter I’m going to read today, which I think justifies the action we’re taking. I want to commend my friends in the third party because I think what we’re trying to do is preserve out of this some semblance of recognizing the desires for the people in the local areas to decide. In other words, what we’re saying is we’re accepting the will of the House but we’re also providing a mechanism whereby what is the express wish of the people in the archipelago area can be effected without -- as my friend well knows, something we’ve been discussing ad infinitum in this House -- long-protracted annexations.

Mr. Nixon: Did you have a referendum or something? What is the expressed wish?

Hon. Mr. Wells: The express wish is from the Georgian Bay Association.

I want to read the letter. It says: “Dear Mr. Wells:

“In the light of the amendments by the opposition critics of Bill 100 presently before the Legislature, it is my view that in the light of the design and work that has gone into this project the bill is so compromised that it is less than satisfactory.

“Our major concern in forming the new archipelago municipality was to provide efficient, responsible local government with major emphasis on planning and environment. In addition to this, we wish to ensure the participation of all the inhabitants in the formation of one municipality. As a result of the amendments, this will not be so.

“We wish to thank the government and its several ministries which have contributed so valiantly for the support of this project. It is with tragic regret that the opposition parties failed to recognize the significance of the proposed legislation and the overwhelming support of all the inhabitants in the area.

“For the following major reasons we would kindly ask that the government not proceed with the bill:

(1) Six years of planning;

(2) Professional advice ignored;

(3) Ministry recommendations compromised;

(4) Wishes of the inhabitants not recognized by the parties in the Legislature.

“I believe the government and the association do not wish to initiate legislation that has very little chance of success. Hopefully, we can continue to work towards the goals that have become recognized and supported by so many people throughout the province at another time under different circumstances.

“Yours sincerely,

“C. W. King, President, the Georgian Bay Association”

He also puts a postscript which is very important, Mr. Speaker: “As our mandate pertains to the islands and shoreline, the above remarks pertain to that part of the bill dealing with the archipelago municipality.”

I considered that letter very seriously. I considered it because in the last 48 hours in that area a petition with over 1,000 names was presented to us supporting the legislation and one municipality for the archipelago.

However, I also weighed very carefully the wishes of this House because we cannot take frivolously and we cannot ignore the wishes of this House. The wishes of this House were that two municipalities be created.

I also considered the postscript in that letter very important. My colleague from the riding of Parry Sound has been working many years with the other municipalities to help them effect the annexations and amalgamations which they have been desirous of having. This also is in the bill. Therefore, it would be folly for us not to proceed with the bill,

[11:45]

Also, I believe it would be folly to ignore what seem to be and what I think are, in fact, the wishes of the people in that area; it would be folly to override and to run roughshod over their wishes and impose something which is completely new and different to municipalities. Incidentally, these are being created -- at least one of them and, if my facts are right, both of them -- with a fewer number of permanent residences than we’ve ever used as a basis for creating an organized municipality in any area in Ontario.

Mr. Nixon: There aren’t many organized townships that small.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I do not believe that there are any that have fewer than 500 permanent residences. So, weighing all these things, Mr. Speaker, we feel it is the prudent course of action, and we are asking the House’s consideration of this, we’re not trying to arbitrarily push anything through. That’s why I discussed it with my friends on the other side; we’re asking the House to look at what is a real people problem.

You have people up there who wanted something. They see their wishes frustrated down here. Let’s live with their wishes and let’s give them an opportunity and an easy and inexpensive way to decide, once the new council is elected, if they wish to be joined together. It’s as simple as that. If they don’t wish to be joined together they never will. In that case there would be two municipalities. But if they do wish, it will be a simple process.

Mr. Nixon: What about this telegram referring to the 1,000 signatures on the other side? What do you mean, the people want it? You don’t have a referendum.

Hon. Mr. Wells: They won’t have to go through an OMB hearing. The minister may, by order, amalgamate the areas. It’s as simple as that. If the members opposite want to run roughshod over the wishes of the people and use as an excuse the fact that this Legislature has spoken and the positions taken in this Legislature, they are welcome to do so, but, I think we have a reasonable compromise here that I cannot see any reasonable person not accepting.

Mr. Nixon: A reasonable compromise is to do the best two out of three and do it your way.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Listen, of the people who have phoned me about this, a lot of them are Liberals.

Mr. Nixon: What about the 1,000 who have sent the telegram to my honourable colleague?

Hon. Mr. Wells: That telegram was well over a year ago. That was before all the discussions had gone on. The latest petition from people up there has been that they would like one municipality.

Mr. Epp: How could that be? The minister says they have been discussing it for six years and now he says that was before all the discussions have gone on.

Mr. Nixon: It doesn’t sound right to me, Tom,

Hon. Mr. Wells: The discussions have gone on. Believe me, some of the people who have phoned are very good Liberals, too.

Mr. Ruston: The minister should have been in here and put them in the House.

Hon. Mr. Wells: All I’m saying to the members on this Friday is that we have here a very reasonable compromise to help all to accept the wishes of the parties who would like to see two municipalities, but also to provide in the bill a mechanism where, if it is their own wish and, democratically, they do wish to amalgamate, we can save them the time and expense of a very costly and complicated OMB hearing.

Mr. Mancini: More regional government.

Hon. Mr. Wells: So, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this motion should be passed by this House and we have already given the critics of the two opposition parties a very simple amendment which could be proposed and could be inserted in the bill and which, I think, would serve the ends of all of us in this House.

The House divided on Hon. Mr. Welch’s motion to redirect Bill 100, which was approved on the following vote:

Ayes

Auld, Baetz, Belanger, Birch, Bounsall, Breaugh, Brunelle, Bryden, Cassidy, Charlton, Cooke, Cureatz, Davis, Davidson, M., Davison, M. N., Drea, Eaton, Foulds, Germa, Grande, Gregory, Handleman,

Havrot, Henderson, Hodgson, Isaacs, Johnson, J., Jones, Kennedy, Lane, Laughren, Leluk, MacDonald, Mackenzie, Maeck, Makarchuk, Martel, McCaffrey, McCague, McClellan, Newman, W., Parrott, Philip,

Pope, Ramsay, Rotenberg, Rowe, Snow, Stephenson, Sterling, Swart, Taylor, G., Taylor, J. A., Turner, Villeneuve, Walker, Warner, Watson, Welch, Wells, Williams, Wiseman, Yakabuski, Ziemba.

Nays

Blundy, Bradley, Campbell, Conway, Cunningham, Eakins, Epp, Gaunt, Haggerty, Kerrio, Mancini, McEwen, McGuigan, McKessock, Miller, G. I., Newman, B., Nixon, O’Neil, Peterson, Riddell, Ruston, Smith, S., Sweeney, Worton.

Ayes 64; nays 24.

POLLUTION COMPLAINT

Mr. Martel: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Might I ask if it is your intention to rule on the unpleasant business that occurred here last night, in view of the fact that today is the last day the Legislature will sit until October 10?

Mr. Speaker: I did undertake to review the record. The only thing that was available to me was Instant Hansard. The more I read it, the more confused I became. I fail to see where there was any specific allegation against any member of the House. The matter raised by the member for Wentworth was obviously reconciled as a result of the actions taken by the minister. It was raised again by the member for Carleton East and the minister said unequivocally that there was no reference to her personally.

I see no reference here to any member of the House having acted improperly. Had there been, the only recourse the Speaker has is “allegation against another member.” I have looked very, very carefully and I fail to see any allegation against a member of this House or a group of members of this House. So really there is nothing for me to rule on.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: The member for Sudbury East should sit down while he is ahead.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain if we are reading the same Hansard, but if you turn to page 1805-1 it says: “When mail is opened when it is clearly addressed to the solicitor for my ministry, I have to say to the NDP over there ‘Where are your scruples?’”

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Where are they?

Mr. Pope: Where are they?

Mr. Speaker: Let’s not confuse the issue now. You are dealing with a reference to page 1805-1 of Instant Hansard. The allegations contained in there were withdrawn by the minister quite clearly.

Mr. Martel: Where?

Mr. Speaker: The record will show that.

Mr. Martel: I read the record.

Hon. W. Newman: Why don’t you open your eyes?

Mr. Speaker: I have read it too. The only other issue was as a result of the point of privilege raised by the member for Carleton East. The Minister of the Environment said: “I am not making any reference to the member for the Ottawa-Carleton area.” So there is no allegation against any member of this House that I can see in here. Instant Hansard doesn’t help me at all. Had there been, it would have constituted an allegation against a member. I fail to see it in here. There is really nothing for me to rule on.

Mr. Havrot: Let’s stop the nitpicking and get on.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I wish to table the answer to question 256 standing on the Notice Paper and the answers to questions 228 to 234, inclusive, questions 241, 246, 252, 253, 255, 258, 259, 261, 262 and 270 and the interim answer to question 247.

[12:15]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RESIDENTIAL PREMISES RENT REVIEW AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Drea moved second reading of Bill 142,

An Act to amend the Residential Premises Rent Review Act, 1975.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

VILLAGE OF POINT EDWARD ACT

Mr. Rotenberg, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Wells, moved second reading of Bill 131,

An Act respecting the Village of Point Edward.

Mr. Rotenberg: This bill contains several provisions dealing with municipal taxation on real property of the Blue Water Bridge Authority located in the village of Point Edward in Lambton county.

Before describing its provisions, I would first like to provide some historical background. In 1940, legislation was enacted to make the portion of the bridge in Ontario exempt from taxation, including local improvement and school rates, except for a fixed annual tax payment of $5,000 per annum to the village. The village eventually became dissatisfied with the lack of tax revenues from the bridge and legislation was enacted in 1970 to make the property liable to assessment under

section 27 of the Assessment Act.

This did not prove completely satisfactory, and after negotiations the bridge authority and the village agreed on a

schedule of tax payments for the years 1971 to 1977. This was formalized by legislation passed here in 1972. When the agreement expired at the end of 1977, the authority and the village were unable to agree on new terms and as a result no payment was made in 1978.

This is not a satisfactory situation, especially in the light of the fact that the authority is acquiring additional property, thereby further reducing the tax base of the municipality. The bill proposes an appropriate long-term solution while allowing a four-year phase-in period.

Section 1 of the bill provides that the provisions of the Assessment Act will apply to the real property of the authority located in the village, except for the bridge structure.

Section 2 sets out a proposed new

schedule of payments to the village for the years 1978 through 1982 in lieu of municipal taxes, including school taxes, on the bridge structure. This means that until the end of 1982 the authority will pay to the village the amounts set out in

section 2(1) of the bill, plus local improvement rates, as well as full municipal taxes, including school taxes, on all of its real property except the bridge structure.

Section 2(3) of the bill provides that starting in 1983 the authority will pay full municipal taxes, including school taxes, on the bridge structure as well.

The bridge authority is set up by the federal government but is not an authority in the normal sense. It is a private corporation set up by the federal government and is bound by this legislation. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr. Blundy: The haste with which the government is dealing with this bill simply amazes me, not only this morning here in the House, but since it was first suggested that the bill be passed.

I want to speak briefly on the bill. I support the intent of the bill, because I know the only source of funds for the municipality is the taxes on assessments. In Ontario that right to tax must be protected and that is the case in the village of Point Edward. The problem I find is the bill does not take into consideration certain things I believe will happen and which will have a poor effect. I would like to mention these very shortly.

The bridge commission is not set up to accumulate profits, and over the last several years it has had a deficit on operations. It is obvious they are not going to be able to pay the kind of taxes that will have to be paid at the end of 1982. I have checked with the assessment department in Chatham and find that the total assessment on the bridge is $578,645. I got these figures from the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) the other day. This is split in the following way: $342,565 on the structure of the bridge and $236,080 on the lands and buildings of the bridge in the village 0f Point Edward.

I wonder if anybody has given any consideration to the fact that the present toll on the bridge is 35 cents, whether one is coming from Michigan or Ontario. The Minister of Government Services (Mr. Henderson) will recall that after the debentures on the centre span were paid off there were several years in which there were no tolls on the bridge at all. This was caused because the state of Michigan’s highways department was responsible for their portion of the bridge to the international boundary line and they were not able to charge tolls or they would jeopardize certain grants from the US federal government.

Several years later a bill was introduced on their side which to some extent rectified that situation. However, the Michigan highways commission pays no taxes whatsoever to the city of Port Huron on the Michigan side and they are most reluctant to raise tolls. Even when the tolls were raised to the present 35 cents it was done after much discussion with the American side of the bridge, the Michigan highway department.

I can see the following scenario happening if, as I suspect, in 1983 the Blue Water Bridge Commission would be paying in the neighbourhood of $150,000 to $160,000 a year taxes. In order to pay those kinds of taxes, along with the other operating costs the authority has on the approach and the bridge to the international boundary line, they would have to raise tolls to 55, 65 cents or more, so we could have the situation where one may cross the St. Clair River from the Michigan side and pay 35 cents and cross from the Ontario side and pay 50, 55, 60 or 65 cents. This certainly would not be a very good situation.

I would like very much for the parliamentary assistant to think about that and give me his views on what he thinks will happen there.

The other matter that came to my attention when I searched this bill is that most of the bridge structure that goes from the land to the international boundary line is in the township of Sarnia. The pier for the main span stands in the lands of the village of Point Edward, but those lands, I am told, end at the waterline. So for the greatest proportion of the bridge structure the boundary line would be in the township of Sarnia. This bill makes no reference to the township of Sarnia.

There are a number of these situations I would like to have explained and which ought to be explained before we go further into this matter. I know the people of Sarnia-Lambton would want to have a proper explanation of any increase in bridge tolls that takes place. As I said initially, I believe the village of Point Edward must be protected as far as its taxes on assessment are concerned. I want to emphasize that and I do want some explanation for the matters which I have raised in conjunction with the details of this bill.

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill about which one has to be fairly pragmatic. It is setting up a system for taxation of the Blue Water Bridge in the property tax system that we have before us today. We have some difficulty with property taxes as they are being levied in this province. But we have to recognize that the village of Point Edward is dependent for a substantial amount of its income on the Blue Water Bridge. This bill assists with a dispute that has been going on over a long period of time.

In addition, the bill puts the Blue Water Bridge in the same position as at least the majority and perhaps all the other international bridges that come into this province. Because of that, we’re going to support the bill. There’s one concern I want to raise, however. These payments the Blue Water Bridge Authority will be making to the village of Point Edward are an indirect tax on the motoring public that makes use of that bridge, both residents of this province and residents of the United States. It’s another example of where hidden taxes are becoming a more and more significant part of the revenue that is provided either directly or indirectly to the government.

The funds being paid by the motorists are going to the village of Point Edward so the government of Ontario does not have to provide that village with compensatory grants. That concerns me a great deal. We will support it because it’s convenient in the present tax structure, but if we had our druthers we would do it a different way.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I want to address myself to Bill 137,

An Act respecting the Village of Point Edward. I wasn’t going to enter into the debate until the member for Wentworth entered into it and indicated that this was another form of indirect taxing policy by the government or by local municipalities.

I happen to represent an area that is very much involved in this type of legislation. It relates to the international bridge at Fort Erie, Ontario, which has a bridge commission similar to the Blue Water Bridge Authority. Much of this bill is taken from a private bill of the town of Fort Erie as it relates to the

schedule of fees.

I think the member for Wentworth should be well aware of the problems that are created in a municipality where there is an international bridge. It certainly does bring in a certain amount of revenue, but it also compounds certain problems within the municipality. There are other service roads and interconnecting roads that meet an international bridge, and much of their cost is borne by the municipality.

In the particular legislation relating to Fort Erie, under the former county of Welland system we knew at that time that we could not assess the bridge. It was not covered under the Assessment Act. In the explanatory notes of this bill it definitely states that: “Under this

section the real property of the Blue Water Bridge Authority, except the structure known as the Blue Water Bridge, is made subject to the provisions of the Assessment Act. At the present time the Assessment Act does not apply to the real property of the bridge authority.”

[12:30]

Members of county council, along with the council of the town of Fort Erie, have known full well the business generated at the bridge from tolls. In the Fort Erie area, for example, by the time they paid all their operating expenses, there was about $300,000 or $400,000 a year going to the federal government. The council thought, at that time, and the county did as well, that in no way should this amount of revenue go to Ottawa. They thought there should be some reimbursement to the town that had provided most of the services.

A gentleman’s agreement, made by the Fort Erie Public Bridge Authority, which included Buffalo, permitted the town to assess or tax certain portions of the bridge. In 1976, it generated $83,500 for the town of Fort Erie. That’s quite a bit of revenue. I know they’re now working an agreement for one year. I say this, and the member for Sarnia has mentioned it here, by looking at the pro-rated assessment value that’s put on there that would generate revenue for the village of Point Edward, it was $57,000 in 1978; $65,000 in 1979; and will be $80,000 in 1982.

I hope the parliamentary assistant has given consideration to the question raised by the member for Sarnia that it should be based upon the tolls generated. It could mean there may be a substantial increase in tolls on that bridge if they go to the

schedule established there.

I don’t know what revenue is generated. The member mentioned they had run a deficit after paying all the operational costs, the bridge maintenance and so forth. I don’t know how they’re going to collect that money unless the toll is raised. I suggest to the member that perhaps he should consider that again. Perhaps the

schedule he has is too high. For example, people say Fort Erie is the number one port of entry into Canada, the most used port of entry into Canada. Perhaps more revenue generated from this area could generate the $83,500 that’s paid to the town in lieu of taxes. I suggest the $80,000 figure may have just been pulled out of mid air. It may be too high. I don’t know, but if it is too high there is no need to increase the tolls on the bridge. If they have to generate that much money, the members can rest assured the tolls will probably go up to about 50 cents. I don’t know. At Fort Erie it costs 35 cents to cross the bridge one way. I don’t know what it is at the Blue Water Bridge.

Mr. Blundy: Thirty-five cents.

Mr. Haggerty: It’s 35 cents, so they’re the same.

The toll depends upon the flow of traffic coming across this particular bridge. Can they generate sufficient funds there? I hope the parliamentary assistant will take a look at that.

I support the bill in principle. The Fort Erie bill is usually passed in the Ontario Legislature as a private bill, a municipal bill, but it’s done by agreement between the two parties; that is, the local municipality and the bridge authority. In this particular instance there seems to be no agreement between the two parties. If this bill is passed here today and becomes law they are dictating back to the local authorities this must be law. It’s an international bridge. It’s a federal matter in a sense.

Unless an amendment to the Assessment Act is brought in I suggest this to the minister, or to the parliamentary assistant, from my dealings and discussions with the town of Fort Erie while on county council a few years ago. If there is no gentlemen’s agreement between the authority and the local council they may never be able to collect that tax. I think the bridge authority has a right to appeal it. How can they tax them under the Assessment Act, when it’s not there? I suggest there should be a gentlemen’s agreement between the two parties rather than bringing in legislation to say this is what it’s going to be. There may be a court case involved in this.

I will tell the members, from my experience in dealing with it in the Fort Erie area this was always one of the problems council and the bridge authority had to consider; if there was no agreement between the two parties it would probably have to be settled in court -- if it was pushed too far.

I bring that to the members’ attention, but I support the principle of the bill. I think it is time all the bridges were assessed so the proper revenue can be generated to assist the municipalities.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief because we all want to get away and until the member for Erie spoke I hadn’t intended to speak. The figures he gave for the Fort Erie area and the bridge there are correct, but I want to point out to him and to this House the position of this party. As explained by the member for Wentworth, we go along with this bill because this situation exists with other international bridges in this province, but we believe in principle that they should not be taxed. They should not be taxed for property tax purposes.

There is just something unacceptable about taxing bridges. We have bridges going across the Welland Canal. We have the Burlington bridge. If one says in principle bridges should be taxed, you are saying in effect that bridges in those communities should be taxed as well, because the same sort of situation exists. All we are saying here is that because it is done elsewhere, because it is at the present time a source of revenue for those municipalities and because the others which have a similar situation get it, we are supporting it very definitely at the present time. In the long run, there is something unacceptable to us about levying property taxes on bridges.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to this bill this morning, first, I would like to inform the House that the member for Sarnia is, I believe, as aware of this bridge as anybody in Ontario, barring all. The member for Sarnia happened to be around on October 13, 1938, and walked across this bridge on the night it opened. The member for Lambton did the same thing. That’s how long we have been associated with this bridge.

Mr. Haggerty: Yon were in your prime then.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: We thought we were.

Mr. Blundy: We could walk across the bridge in those days.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I mention 1938 to bring on another subject, namely, that in 1940 a bill went through this Legislature that excluded this bridge from taxation. The reason I want to refer to that bill is that on February 24, 1940, this bill was assented to. On February 24, 1940, this House prorogued for the year. There have been some changes in 39 years.

Mr. Haggerty: You’ve been around for quite a while.

Mr. B. Newman: Those were the good old days.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Yes. Then we advance to the next step. That bill permitted a grant in lieu of taxes of $5,000 per year to the village of Point Edward to apply towards the rates, county school boards, what have you. Shortly after that bill went through, the member for Sarnia and the member for Lambton went to work for $1.10 a day. We did get an advance to $1.80 a day, working for the government down through the years.

If we apply that $1.10 or $1.30 a day to the $5,000 grant, and then if we apply the salaries the member for Sarnia and I are getting today against the proposed grant, I would think that grant, instead of being some $57,000, going up to $80,000, might even be $300,000 to $400,000.

The member for Wentworth suggested that this was hidden tax to the province of Ontario. I would have to differ with the honourable member. I would have to tell him there is nothing hidden with respect to this tax.

The former member for Sarnia brought a private bill before the House back in the late 1960s similar to the bill which was passed in 1972, which did permit the

schedule referred to earlier. It was supported by all sides of the House. This act does not give funds to the province of Ontario. This act gives funds to the school boards in Sarnia and Lambton, to the county of Lambton and to the village of Point Edward. It is shared on that basis. Again I differ with his thoughts that the province of Ontario is going to benefit.

The member for Sarnia brought out a point respecting this bridge passing over land under the jurisdiction of Sarnia township. When the bylaw passed by the county of Lambton set out Point Edward as a separate municipality with village status, it would appear those people drafting that bylaw did not include the water lots off the village of Point Edward and they still remain in Sarnia township.

When the government considered this legislation it was well aware of that problem existing down there. The chairman of the legislation committee of cabinet took the position that Sarnia township does not render any services to this area and the taxes should go to the village of Point Edward. So this bill does not permit Sarnia township any of these taxes and makes it quite clear the taxes are for the village of P