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

March 9, 1978

31st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L014 - Thu 9 Mar 1978 / Jeu 9 mar 1978

SOVIET EMIGRATION

SELECT COMMITTEE ON INCO AND FALCONBRIDGE LAYOFFS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

THUNDER BAY COURTHOUSE

OPP ROLE IN STRIKE

FLECK MANUFACTURING COMPANY

NORTH PICKERING INQUIRY

FUNDING OF SOCIAL SERVICES

INCREASE IN OHIP PREMIUMS

ORAL QUESTIONS

INCREASE IN OHIP PREMIUMS

JOB CREATION

PROPERTY TAXATION

REFORESTATION

STUDENT ASSISTANCE

OPP ROLE IN STRIKE

CLOSING OF SCHOOLS

MANAGEMENT STUDY

MINI-SKOOLS LIMITED

OMB HEARINGS

MIDLAND DISPUTE

HIGHWAY 555

ELDERLY PERSONS’ CENTRES

MINING TAX

PETITION

MINISTRY OF HEALTH REPORT

MOTION

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AMENDMENT ACT

MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT

ANSWER TO PETITION

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS

GASOLINE AND HEATING OIL UNIFORM PRICING ACT

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS AND PETITION

VISITOR

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS

GASOLINE AND HEATING OIL UNIFORM PRICING ACT

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

SOVIET EMIGRATION

Mr. S. Smith: I would like to call the attention of hon. members of this Legislature to an action now being undertaken by three senior professors at the University of Toronto. They are Professor James Ham, dean of graduate studies; Reverend J. M. Kelly, president of St. Michael’s College, and Dr. Louis Simonovich, chairman of the department of medical genetics.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the unanimous consent of the hon. members to a motion that we applaud this initiative of the University of Toronto professors.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to add my voice to the voice of the Leader of the Opposition in support of that particular resolution, which I have already signed. I hope all members of the House agree to take this action in an effort to ensure that human rights are respected in the Soviet Union.

[Later:]

Mr. S. Smith: Point of order, if I might; on a separate matter, Mr. Speaker.

On the matter of Soviet emigration, I was asking unanimous consent of the hon. members to a motion that we applaud the initiative of the University of Toronto professors. I’d be guided by you, Mr. Speaker, as to whether such consent is forthcoming and what action should be taken at this point.

Mr. Ruston: Who’s in charge over there?

Ms. Gigantes: Agreed, agreed.

Mr. Speaker: Is it agreed?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes, agreed; we said that.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON INCO AND FALCONBRIDGE LAYOFFS

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege.

On March 6, the member for Mississauga South (Mr. Kennedy) rose on a point of personal privilege as a result of comments made in the select committee report on the Inco and Falconbridge layoffs. He referred to comments made by my colleagues the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren), the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie), the member for Oriole (Mr. Williams) and myself, on page 28 of the Inco Falconbridge select committee report.

In the report tabled, the New Democratic Party members made the following statement pertaining to one of the recommendations in the Interim Report on the Select Committee on Economic and Cultural Nationalism: Natural Resources, Foreign Ownership and Economic Development: “Some 23 major recommendations were made by this committee, one of them calling for public ownership of the resource industries. Again this government failed to act.”

The member for Mississauga South on March 6, 1978, indicated that no recommendation which called for public ownership of the resource industry was made. He stated there was “a recommendation which called for 75 per cent Canadian ownership of equity after 15 years, but that does not mean ... government or state ownership.”

The member for Mississauga South went on: “Further, on page 74 of the interim report, there is a recommendation that says the government should be empowered to take up to 50 per cent of the equity in new ventures in the non-renewable natural resources sector. But neither myself” -- and I’m speaking about the member for Mississauga South -- “nor the member for London South (Mr. Walker) agreed to that recommendation. In any event, a recommendation stating that the government should be empowered to take an equity position is not the same as calling for public ownership of the resource industries.”

The member for Mississauga South continued: “The additional comments of the four members of the third party implied that members of the select committee and members of this party” -- and in brackets I indicate the Conservative Party -- “were in favour of public ownership of the resource industry. That is not a factual statement …”

Mr. Speaker, that is the point I want to make -- when the member for Mississauga South said, “That is not a factual statement.” It is this final remark by the member with which I cannot agree and at which I take umbrage.

What in effect the member for Mississauga South is attempting to do is disclaim that his party, the Liberal Party and the NDP jointly called for public ownership of new development in the non-renewable resources sector. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

The member for Mississauga South might like to argue that their calling for 50 per cent equity position in new ventures in the nonrenewable sector did not indicate his colleagues meant public ownership; that’s nonsense. The select committee on economic and cultural nationalism recommended -- and I’m quoting from that -- “that government should be empowered to take up to 50 per cent of the equity in new ventures in the non-renewable natural resources sector.”

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to turn, when you have an opportunity, to page 81 of the select committee’s report and direct your attention to the dissenting opinions of the members for Mississauga South and London South, which I want to quote. Their words are as follows: “This recommendation permits the government, at its option, to acquire up to 50 per cent equity in mining enterprises.

This ignores the fact that the private sector may have invested heavily in exploration and be at the same stage of developing, economically, a viable operation.” They go on -- and this is very salient to the point I am making -- “This is grossly unfair to the private sector and would in effect be a move towards nationalization, in part, of the non-renewable natural resources industry.”

Mr. Laughren: They should make up their minds. They can’t have it both ways.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the member for Mississauga South’s statement of last Monday when he said, “In any event, a recommendation stating that government should be empowered to take an equity position is not the same as calling for public ownership of the resource industry.” Yet in his dissenting opinion in 1974, Mr. Kennedy says, “This is grossly unfair to the private sector and would in fact be a move towards nationalization.”

Mr. Lewis: He can’t have it both ways.

Mr. Martel: The only members who dissented from that report --

Mr. Rotenberg: What’s your point of privilege?

Mr. Mackenzie: Skewered by his own words.

Mr. Martel: The only members who dissented from that recommendation were the members for Mississauga South and London South. The rest of the committee knew full well what we meant was being discussed. In fact, so did the members for Mississauga South and London South, because they in fact so indicated by their dissent to signing that particular recommendation. The member for Mississauga South cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Rotenberg: You always have.

Mr. Martel: His party and the members of his party, as well as the Liberal and New Democratic members, knew what they were signing. One only has to read the select committee report, pages 66 to 75, to be aware. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me an opportunity for clarifying that point of personal privilege.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It has confused the issue more.

Mr. Speaker: While I listened with a great deal of patience to the presentation made by the member for Sudbury East, I don’t think it constituted a point of privilege.

Mr. Martel: Sure it did.

Mr. Speaker: It’s a difference in an opinion or an

interpretation as to what was meant by the recommendations, and it varies significantly from the

interpretation placed on it by the member for Mississauga South.

Mr. Havrot: It’s a waste of time.

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member has had an opportunity. I listened patiently to his point of privilege last week. I listened to a rebuttal of it. I don’t think either one of them was a legitimate point of privilege.

Mr. Kennedy: Could I raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I don’t know what could possibly be out of order. We haven’t even started routine proceedings yet.

Mr. Kennedy: Would you give me a try, Mr. Speaker? Would you give me a try on a point of order?

Mr. Speaker: I’ll let you try.

Mr. Cassidy: We tried; and we won’t come back a second time.

Mr. Kennedy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I repeat, I know of no recommendation in that report calling for public ownership of the resource industry and the member is just clouding the issue.

Mr. Martel: You can’t have it both ways.

Mr. Kennedy: We don’t want it both ways, we just don’t want it your way.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

THUNDER BAY COURTHOUSE

Hon. Mr. Henderson: During the last session of the Legislature --

Mr. Sargent: He should take over the Treasurer’s job.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: -- the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) asked my predecessor several questions concerning the condition of the provincial criminal courthouse in Thunder Bay. In order to clear up certain misconceptions which were apparent in the report of the inspection panel, on which the hon. member based his questions, I have obtained a consulting engineer’s report which I am now proposing to table.

In

summary, the report indicates the building is structurally sound, although there has been some settlement. The settlements are below the limits at which distress might be expected to occur to a structure and have not affected the operation of the building. There are no unusual ground-water conditions at the site. In particular, no evidence of artesian condition or wells or springs has been found. The drainage system from the basement is being examined and repairs will be undertaken as the need is shown to exist. Repairs to the roofing and waterproofing in the basement will be undertaken in the near future. Copies have been given to the opposition.

Mr. Kerrio: Did the report consider the north side?

OPP ROLE IN STRIKE

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I would like to make a brief statement today clarifying the role of the Ontario Provincial Police --

Mr. Deans: Here comes the apology.

Mr. Warner: Disgusting.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- in the labour dispute at Huron Park involving Fleck Manufacturing Company Limited and the United Automobile workers.

Mr. Lewis: The minister should discipline severely all of those who are involved.

Hon. Mr. Ken: As a result of questions put by the hon. member for Wentworth to my colleague, the Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson), in the Legislature on Tuesday, I requested a complete report on the picket-line incidents and the situation at the plant generally from OPP Commissioner Harold Graham.

First of all, I want to stress that the OPP has not taken sides in the dispute but was present at the plant strictly to maintain the peace.

Mr. Deans: Of course it did. It took sides on Friday when it went in.

Mr. Lewis: It has.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Secondly, the decision to inform workers of their rights and responsibilities during the strike was made by the local OPP detachment commander, Sergeant Roy Glover.

Mr. Martel: They do that every day.

Mr. Lewis: That is ridiculous.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I have been assured he was not contacted in any way by James Fleck, deputy minister of Industry and Tourism, any member of his family or any government official at Queen’s Park with a request to speak to the workers.

The detachment was first involved in this labour dispute when a plant employee, Mary Lou Richards, came to the Exeter detachment on February 23, 1978, seeking advice on the rights of strikers. She was given that information. She is a member of Local 1620 of the United Automobile Workers and a UAW representative in the plant. On the morning of Friday, March 3, 1978, Sgt. Clover sent Constable W. F. Maclntyre, his community services officer, to the plant when advised by management that a strike was pending and that there were rumours of impending trouble. Constable Maclntyre returned to headquarters and briefed Sergeant Glover on the situation.

At 2 p.m. that same afternoon, Constable Maclntyre and Corporal Freeth returned to the plant at Sergeant Glover’s direction. Constable Maclntyre was in civilian dress, which, as a full-time plain-clothes officer, is his normal attire. Corporal Freeth was in full uniform. The workers were assembled and Constable Maclntyre addressed all employees and advised them of their rights and of the laws regarding intimidation, mischief, damage, threats and weapons.

It was made abundantly clear that the police would not take sides in the matter --

Mr. Deans: Oh, come on.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- and that the OPP presence would be strictly for the purpose of maintaining the peace.

Mr. Deans: By the very fact he was there he was taking sides.

Mr. Makarchuk: You don’t call that intimidation.

Mr. Lewis: That is an incredible intrusion on free collective bargaining, an unforgivable intrusion.

An hon. member: Bring the OPP under public control.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Several questions posed by the employees were answered. Constable Maclntyre’s comments were based on material contained in the OPP’s in-service training manual on strikes.

Mr. Lewis: It is really unforgivable. Where has it ever happened before?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: A copy of this manual is in every detachment library.

I do not intend to comment today on the picket-line incidents involving a union representative and a picketer, as charges have been laid and this matter will be decided by the courts. I can only say that Commissioner Graham has assured me that his men are acting impartially in this strike and intend only to maintain peace on the picket line.

Mr. Martel: You should be ashamed of yourself.

Mr. Lewis: They are intimidating women on the picket line. You should have a judicial inquiry.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Scarborough West doesn’t have to react to every statement that is said.

[2:15]

Mr. Lewis: I don’t react to every statement, only the absurd statements; only the provocative statements.

Mr. Makarchuk: That’s just about every statement.

An hon. member: Here comes another one.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I won’t be provocative.

FLECK MANUFACTURING COMPANY

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: In view of some questions raised in this House and in related news stories concerning my deputy minister, I want to say that after examining the facts and discussing --

Mr. Deans: There was no question in this House.

Mr. Makarchuk: The minister should be embarrassed.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I am going to respond to the interjection because I think if Hansard is checked, the member will find there was reference made by the hon. member for Wentworth concerning the Deputy Minister of Industry and Tourism. If there was no reference made to him, then it will not be necessary for me to make a statement.

Mr. Deans: I said “whether the name is Fleck or otherwise.” That was my comment.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: In view of some questions raised in this House and in related news stories concerning my deputy minister, I want to say that after examining the facts and discussing this personally with Mr. Fleck, I am confident that the position of Fleck Manufacturing and Mr. Fleck’s role as deputy minister conjure up no conflict of interest.

From what Mr. Fleck has told me, I am satisfied that he has no involvement in the day-to-day general administration of this company. Further, my investigation of the matter convinces me that this company receives no preference or special treatment from government or any of its agencies.

By way of background, I must explain that Huron Industrial Park, the former Canadian Forces base in Centralia, is located in Huron county on Highway 4, approximately 25 miles north of London and four miles south of Exeter.

In 1967, the Ontario government commissioned a firm of management consultants, Stevenson and Kellogg Limited, to conduct a feasibility study into the practicability of converting the base into an industrial/educational complex. The results were positive. In the same year the property was acquired from the Department of National Defence and ownership was transferred to the Ontario Development Corporation for administration and operation.

The park comprises 767 acres of developed land zoned into six general areas -- an industrial complex, educational complex, residential complex, commercial complex, recreational complex and an airfield. One hundred and fifty-two thousand square feet is occupied by the Centralia College of Agricultural Technology and the Animal Health and Veterinary Services School.

The industrial complex totals 396,000 square feet, primarily located in seven hangars each providing in excess of 42,000 square feet. Current rental rates for these hangars range from 74 to 85 cents per square foot per year, depending upon the year in which the present tenant assumed his lease. All leases contain an escalation clause providing for rate increases annually.

Mr. Sargent: A pretty cozy deal, eh?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Since 1973, Fleck Manufacturing has occupied 45,755 square feet in hangar No. 1. This space was first leased in 1968 to the Hall Lamp Company, who went into receivership in 1973. During their occupancy, the rental rate was 50 cents per square foot per year.

Fleck Manufacturing Limited first occupied the space through arrangements made with the receiver/manager. In September 1974 the Fleck organization assumed a five-year lease from ODC at an initial rate of 63 cents per square foot, with a five-cent-per-year escalation clause. The company is now in the fourth year of this lease, paying 78 cents per square foot. This will rise to 83 cents in September of this year.

Mr. Sargent: You can’t even get storage for that.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The hon. member is well aware what happens when anything goes into receivership; he’s probably been through it more times than anyone else in the House.

I would like to add that every effort has been made to make Huron Industrial Park a profitable, self-sustaining complex, providing employment and job opportunities at no cost to the taxpayer. This had proved to be the case, and at present, based on recognized accounting standards, Huron Industrial Park operates from its own funds and has accumulated a reserve of $1,425,000. This reserve is available for new capital expenditures or for replacement and refurbishing of existing services and facilities.

Mr. Martel: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: There is no point of order.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, there is a point of order.

Mr. Martel: There is a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: No, there isn’t.

Mr. Deans: There is.

Mr. Speaker: There isn’t.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, there is a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Anything that results from a ministerial statement can be legitimately raised in question period.

Mr. Makarchuk: His statement is out of order.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, there is a point of order. Would you kindly listen to it?

Mr. Speaker: There isn’t. Are you denying the minister the right to make a statement in this House?

Mr. Deans: No.

Mr. Lewis: No.

Mr. Martel: If you would kindly listen.

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing out of order.

Mr. Martel: There is something out of order.

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing out of order.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing out of order.

Mr. MacDonald: There is something out of order.

An hon. member: How can you know when you won’t listen?

Mr. Lewis: Is it not possible for you to listen before you rule?

Mr. Speaker: You may rise on a question of privilege or to correct something that was said.

Mr. Lewis: I rise on a question of privilege which relates to a correction of the proceedings.

Mr. Speaker: Try it.

Mr. Lewis: Fair enough. It’s good of you to allow it, sir.

Under the rules of this House, opposition critics are entitled to copies of ministerial statements before they are delivered -- under the rules of this House, Mr. Speaker.

The statements were not delivered. My colleague simply wished to draw that to the attention of the minister and the Speaker -- that we have that right by rules of the Legislature.

Mr. Martel: Maybe you should apologize.

Mr. Lewis: I don’t know whether that’s a point of order or a point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: My apology. That is a point of order.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The reason I didn’t think that was a possibility was that I was just delivered a letter from the hon. Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Norton) where he said he had been accused of the same thing. I found out the minister was not at fault; the actual copies of statements had been delivered to the office of the leader of the New Democratic Party at least 20 minutes prior to the statement having been delivered in the House.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, but that’s not John Rhodes. We know the way Rhodes operates.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely correct. I did not deliver it before the reading of the statement. However, the statements were just produced this morning. I had the copies here on my desk --

Mr. Lewis: I’m just drawing it to your gentle attention.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- and they were delivered -- two copies to the leader of the New Democratic Party, two copies to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: My humblest apologies --

Mr. Lewis: They are accepted with good grace.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- and heaven knows, I would not want to break any of the rules of the House --

Mr. Lewis: I know that, sir. I know that.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- in keeping with the method followed by the New Democratic Party.

NORTH PICKERING INQUIRY

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I am today tabling the report of the commission of inquiry into the acquisition by the government of certain lands in the community of North Pickering.

Members will recall that this inquiry was established in October 1976 after the report of the Ombudsman on this subject, the response of the Ministry of Housing and hearings of the select committee on the Ombudsman as part of a two-tribunal hearing, one by this commission and one by an officer of the Office of the Ombudsman, Mr. Keith Hoilett.

The commission was to consider, recommend and report on three main areas of contention:

1. The merits of claims for additional compensation in cases placed in dispute by the response of the Ministry of Housing; any other cases handled by any of the five named land agents;

2. The amount of any additional compensation;

3. The allegations of misconduct against Terry Bortolotti, James Gilhespie, William Thompson, Joseph Kuzik and J. E. Spafford.

The order in council establishing the commission stated that “all matters referred to this commission shall be heard and determined in proceedings of an adversarial nature.”

It is important to note that these references and directions were drafted in accordance with an agreement signed by the Ombudsman and the then Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes) on October 1, 1976. This agreement was reached after discussions were carried on at the direction of the select committee on the Ombudsman. An

interpretation of these terms of reference was made by the Court of Appeal of Ontario at the request of counsel for the claimants and the commission proceeded on the basis of this judicial instruction.

The report records the statement of the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough), made in this House on March 2, 1972, announcing the whole North Pickering program and comments upon the resulting efforts that were made to inform landowners who might be affected by the project. These efforts included the distribution of pamphlets, newsletters and newspaper supplements, and meetings held in the area.

The commission began its hearings on November 4, 1976, and the report records the history of the proceedings and outlines the perceived duties of the commission.

Unfortunately, these duties were to a large extent complicated by the refusal of the applicants to appear before the commission. In spite of notices published in the daily newspapers and served on the former landowners, none appeared at the final hearing or gave evidence with the exception of one claimant who gave part of her evidence in chief. However, some 47 exhibits were filed and considered.

In relation to allegations against the five land acquisition agents, the commission found these agents were experienced in real estate matters and qualified for the positions they held.

The notes they made at the time of their visits to owners and the comments made therein demonstrated that they had sought to serve the interests of the owners and fully appreciated their obligations to treat them fairly and justly, the commission found.

It also found that they did not attempt to minimize the value of the property but pointed out those factors which would tend to increase the value of that property and that they were sensitive to the rights of the owners and endeavoured to promote such rights.

The commission pointed out that one of the complainants was a lawyer and a considerable number of the other complainants had acted on the advice of their solicitors. The commission has no reason not to assume that those solicitors were qualified and competent to -- and did -- properly advise their clients and protect their interests.

I will quote very briefly from the conclusion of the report:

“A careful consideration and weighing of the report of the Ombudsman, especially the summaries of the representations made by the complainants and the interviews conducted by the Ombudsman and the evidence led on behalf of the five land acquisition agents before this commission, leads to the conclusion that none of the allegations of misconduct made in the report of the Ombudsman on the North Pickering project against [the five agents named] is justified....”

FUNDING OF SOCIAL SERVICES

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) and myself, I would like to report the results of a meeting of federal and provincial ministers of welfare and social services in Ottawa on March 6 and 7.

As hon. members are aware, the provinces and the federal government have been involved in discussions for more than three years regarding a new arrangement to replace Canada Assistance Plan funding of social services. This, of course, does not include sharing of income maintenance, which will continue to be shared under the Canada Assistance Plan.

Before providing details of the meeting, I would like to highlight relevant background information regarding this issue.

Since the introduction of the Canada Assistance Plan in 1966, provincial expenditures on “federally approved” social services have received 50 per cent cost-sharing from the federal government. This federal assistance has been very valuable in the development of Ontario’s social services system. While we appreciate this support, it should be made very clear that federal cost-sharing under the Canada Assistance Plan has never been available for all the social services that our people require.

Consequently, this government initiated, and in many cases maintained, a number of important social services at 100 per cent provincial expense. This occurred because the necessary services were either ineligible for federal sharing or shareable only if certain restrictive conditions were met. Extended care for the elderly and adult mental retardation services were 100 per cent funded by the province at the outset, although some federal cost-sharing ultimately was obtained for both.

Mr. McClellan: Some? It’s $123 million.

Hon. Mr. Norton: However, services such as children’s mental health centres, children’s mental retardation services, elderly persons’ centres, meals-on-wheels and a number of other programs were initiated and are maintained to this day at 100 per cent provincial expense. The magnitude of this can be seen readily by the fact that approximately $110 million of expenditures on children’s services under the Ministry of Community and Social Services receive no federal cost-sharing.

My intention is not to criticize the federal government nor to minimize their contribution. Rather, it is my intention to indicate that the Canada Assistance Plan has not been fully adequate to meet the needs of the people of Ontario.

In these circumstances, Ontario welcomed federal initiatives in 1975 to develop a new and more appropriate approach to funding of social services. Unfortunately, the proposed new Social Services Act, Bill C-57, which was tabled in June 1977, did not meet our requirements. It offered a broader base for cost-sharing and would have provided assistance for a number of services which were not shareable under the Canada Assistance Plan. However, we were concerned about the potentially restrictive aspects of the proposed legislation.

The Social Services Act was extremely detailed in respect to the range of cost-shared services, eligibility for service and user charges paid by the recipients. As such the Act did not provide the degree of flexibility required by the province and gave the federal government greater potential control and leverage over provincial social services.

It was also administratively cumbersome as the federal government subsequently did acknowledge.

[2:30]

Therefore, Ontario responded promptly and positively to the federal government’s September 1977 offer to block fund services instead of proceeding with Bill C-57. The block funding approach did not meet Ontario’s stated preference for tax points transfer. However, it was an extremely positive step on the part of the federal government. It confirmed their confidence in the ability and the willingness of the provinces to fulfil their responsibilities in a flexible manner in accordance with provincial priorities.

The original offer was unilaterally revised by the federal government in December 1977. This revised block funding offer was the subject of our meetings this week where the ministers agreed that a new arrangement for federal funding of social services will commence on April 1, 1978. The funding formula will be based upon:

1. The amount the provinces will have received in 1977-78 for social services under the Canada Assistance Plan, the Vocational Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons Agreement, and the Rehabilitation of Young Offenders Agreement;

2. An additional per capita “enrichment factor” associated with a more comprehensive coverage of social services and intended to provide for further development of services. This amount will not be payable until 1979 and will be escalated thereafter for the ensuing 10 years;

3. An escalator factor for each subsequent year based on the gross national product experience and increases in population;

4. A “levelling” adjustment that would gradually eliminate over the 10-year period the provincial differences above or below the national average contribution by Canada so that at the end of the period each province would receive the same per capita contribution.

The agreement will apply for a 10-year period. It contains three general conditions pertaining to residency, recognition of federal contribution, and provision of information. The block funding offer has not met all of the Ontario government’s expectations, nor those of other provinces. As noted previously, Ontario would have preferred a tax point transfer. Fiscal realities led the federal government to postpone unilaterally the enrichment factor for one year, thus reducing the expected federal contributions to the provinces by $132 million in 1978-79.

The 10-year period of the agreement effectively transfers the risks regarding service growth to the provinces. Ontario and several other provinces have preferred to renegotiate after five years. There was a general concern among the provinces regarding the application of the three conditions, particularly in respect to the information requirements which have yet to be determined precisely.

It is not possible to establish the exact financial implications for Ontario given the variables contained in the formula. In addition, the fact that a number of relationships with the established programs’ financing agreement have not been fully determined could alter the estimate by as much as about five per cent. However, the general financial impact, according to federal estimates, will be approximately as follows:

In 1978-79 funding under the new agreement, estimated at $155 million, will provide approximately $5 to $10 million more than the present Canada Assistance Plan Agreement. In 1979-80 the introduction of the enrichment and levelling factors combined with the escalator will provide an estimated total transfer to the province of $235 million.

In effect, Ontario will continue to bear the costs of “non-shareable” social services during the 1978-79 fiscal year. Federal transfers in that year are significantly lower than the amount Ontario would have received under the Social Services Act. However, in 1979-80 federal funding will increase by approximately $80 million.

Approximately $55 million of that increase is attributable to the “enrichment factor.” The remainder represents the escalator and the first levelling payment. The “enrichment” factor is intended to provide for more comprehensive coverage of social services and further development of services. However, the real effect in Ontario will be to extend federal funding to existing social services, which were previously not cost shared.

This point can be readily illustrated by the fact that Ontario, despite its highly developed system of social services, receives the lowest per capita federal contribution for social services in this country. At present, Ontario’s per capita federal contribution is approximately $6 less than the national average of $22 per capita, and $12 to $16 less than the per capita payment received by some provinces.

We recognize this agreement is not an ideal solution, but ideal solutions are not readily attainable at this time. However, the block funding proposal has very positive advantages. It increases federal support of social services in the province and provides Ontario with greater flexibility to determine its own priorities. This flexibility must be matched by responsibility. Ontario has always recognized its responsibilities for social services, even when federal cost-sharing was not available. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that Ontario will continue to do so under this new arrangement.

INCREASE IN OHIP PREMIUMS

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, I seek your advice in this matter; perhaps it will be necessary to obtain a statement of fact from the Treasurer.

I understand the OHIP premium increase, as announced the other night, is in direct contradiction to

section 54 of the British North America Act. It is in contradiction of standing order 86, which applies to our House, and in fact to

section 90 of the British North America Act, the essence of which says that no tax shall be imposed without legislation. The Treasurer, in his statement, made it quite clear he was collecting the OHIP premium increase as a tax revenue source.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that such a move is in clear contradiction to our standing orders as well as to the direction given by the British North America Act, and I would ask you to make a ruling on that.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member is asking me to rule on the British North America Act. I’ll take a look at the hon. member’s point of privilege to see whether or not it is a prima facie case, then I’ll decide as to whether or not I will rule on whether it’s in conflict with the British North America Act.

Mr. Sargent: You are talking to a lawyer now.

Mr. Breithaupt: Can you find that out by the end of the question period?

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question of the Treasurer, now that we’re not only eating inflation but living and breathing it as well in Ontario.

Mr. Kennedy: Wrestle it to the ground like your leader did. Trudeau is wrestling it to the ground, haven’t you noticed?

Mr. Nixon: He wasn’t even prepared to admit he’s made a typo.

Mr. S. Smith: Actually, he has escalated an obvious typographical error to an art form, but we’ll allow him to do that.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Let’s have the question.

INCREASE IN OHIP PREMIUMS

Mr. S. Smith: Will the Treasurer delay the implementation of the 37 per cent OHIP premium increase, now scheduled for May 1, pending consideration of that increase, and also pending the consideration of alternatives that might be cheaper, and certainly more equitable, in this House? Would he permit us to consider the possibilities of other alternative ways of funding our health care system, admittedly an expensive system, rather than proceeding on May 1 with the 37 per cent increase in OHIP premiums?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I’m quite sure in the debate -- which begins not today, not until Monday as I understand it -- that the House and certainly the government will look forward to the alternatives put forward by the Liberal Party to that particular premium increase.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary: Since my request was for the House to have an opportunity to consider the possible alternatives that might be suggested on all sides of the House, would he consider delaying the implementation of the increase, which is at present scheduled to occur very soon, starting on May 1 -- and plans have to be made to collect that of course -- and if he has done studies himself concerning the relative efficacy of these possible alternatives, would he be kind enough to table those studies as quickly as possible so that we can consider them in the Legislature?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, as I recall, there was rather extensive documentation in the budget of two years ago. If there is other documentation, I will be glad to make it available to the Leader of the Opposition. The regulation was brought forward to cabinet yesterday and was passed, and I assume has been signed. Certainly, if the Leader of the Opposition comes forward, or anyone comes forward, with alternatives that make sense, I can only repeat that we’d be glad to consider them.

Mr. Cassidy: Given the fact that a married taxpayer earning $10,000 a year with a couple of kids will now pay more in OHIP premiums annually than in provincial and federal income tax, given the fact that farmers and small businessmen will be particularly hard hit by this particular increase and given that wage earners in the province are being held to a wage increase of six per cent per annum this year under the AIB rules, how can the Treasurer justify a 37% per cent increase in OHIP premiums?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I doubt that question was supplementary but I will be --

Mr. MacDonald: Are you the Speaker or just provincial Treasurer?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- glad to answer it.

An hon. member: It’s not your job to rule.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think one looks at a variety of ways to increase revenues, be it in direct taxes or be it in terms of premium revenues. I looked at a number of alternatives and, in terms of the amount of money which I felt was necessary to add to the revenues of the province, this seemed in many ways the most equitable and fair way to do it.

Mr. Cassidy: Equitable?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would point out, to put this in perspective, that a roughly similar amount of money to be raised under the personal income tax would require raising our rate from about 44 to 48 or, alternatively, I suppose one might have looked to the retail sales tax and raised the retail sales tax from seven per cent to eight per cent, which would have brought in nearly $300 million.

Mr. Mackenzie: That’s a Tory solution.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would point out that one of the features of the present system -- and we look for improvements for it -- is that in the first instance it is largely paid by employers, and the figures are in the budget. It is true that in many instances it is a taxable benefit. I would point out that, as opposed to going to the retail sales tax or some other route, retail sales tax would be paid by many more people

whereas, if memory serves me correctly, 1.82 million people, or something over 20 per cent of the people of the province, will not pay the premium at all because of either their age group or their income level.

All in all, in looking at a series of alternatives, this appeared to me to be the most appropriate way to raise that amount of money, bearing also in mind that we attempt to relate to the public one of our most pressing problems, that is, the cost of health care. It is a large bill and the premium does assist in reminding us of that fact. I am sure that today and yesterday there are many people in the province who are more aware of the large health bill which the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) presents to this Legislature than perhaps they were last Monday or Tuesday.

Mr. Cassidy: You can’t have it both ways.

Mr. Mackenzie: You take it away from them, don’t you?

Mr. Bradley: Supplementary: Can the minister tell this House exactly how much and what additional financial burdens he has placed on the various levels of governments, for example, local and regional governments, boards of education and transit commissions, especially since most of these pay either a part of the benefits or the entire benefits as they relate to OHIP premiums? Doesn’t he realize that these local governments and school boards will now have to find millions of dollars more to meet these costs and will likely have to raise property taxes to do so?

Mr. Warner: It’s called double taxation.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would put the matter in perspective. I know in terms of our own payroll, I think on a full-year basis -- and in our case it will not be a full year and for the municipalities it will be two-thirds of a year only --

Mr. Wildman: But next year are you going to lower them?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Auld) has made a rough calculation that it increases our costs by 0.71 per cent on this particular cost.

Mr. Warner: An extra $2 million in Toronto for property taxes.

Mr. Cooke: You increase the costs and decrease the grants.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would point out to my friends that, for example, what I am budgeting for and in the printed estimates, in respect of our payments in lieu of taxes, which is a tax in effect levied on us by the municipalities on properties, we estimate this year that those payments will go from something like $45 million to $49 million because of rising mill rates. We pay for their rising mill rates. I see no harm in asking them to pay what I would guess to be about a half a per cent increase.

[2:45]

Mr. Cassidy: To the Treasurer, Mr. Speaker: Is it not correct that the only reason the Treasurer is raising the health insurance tax is because this is the only tax he can raise without coming to the Legislature? That is what is happening.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Is the member answering his own question? No, Mr. Speaker, that is not correct. Obviously, we have bills before this House introduced by my colleague, the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Maeck) and my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. F. S. Miller), which raise and lower taxes.

Mr. Cassidy: Is the minister prepared, then, to bring in legislation --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: In regard to the Treasurer’s contention that by laying a $144 million bill on working people they will suddenly recognize how much health care costs, doesn’t he think it entirely more likely that people, faced with paying this amount of money, may well decide to start to get their money’s worth and actually make more use of the system rather than less use of it?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: That’s nonsense.

Mr. Henderson: People are honest.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I can only say if that is the alternative or part of the alternative being proposed by the Liberal Party, I look forward to his suggestions as to where we are going to find this money.

Mr. S. Smith: Then why raise the OHIP premiums to make people know what it costs?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I will say this, I have a little more respect for the medical profession and the hospital administrators than the tenor of that question implies.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary, the hon. member for Scarborough-Ellesmere.

Mr. Warner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Having respect for that group, plus the patients of Ontario and the people of Ontario who are faced with this huge increase, I would ask the Treasurer two supplementaries: I’d like his comment on the fact that because he is raising a revenue tax he is violating the principle of taxation by legislation. Secondly, how can he equate his statement of wanting equity with the fact of double taxation which he has now put on every urban centre in this province?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: On every who?

Mr. Warner: Urban centre in this province. For Toronto, it’s $2 million.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I don’t know the distinction between urban centres and rural centres; I assume it has something to do with the fact that that party doesn’t represent any rural centres.

Mr. Wildman: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Makarchuk: He’s got more land than you have, Darcy.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: If it is a $2 million bill to Metropolitan Toronto, it will also be felt in similar amounts by townships around this province. But I would simply point out that we will pay our share of raising mill rates, and they in turn pay their share of premiums, if they have negotiated that way, and that was their decision.

Mr. Warner: Will the Treasurer answer the first question?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The member raised the first question as a matter before the Speaker, and I think the Speaker would want to reply first. I am not going to speak to that point; I am not a constitutional lawyer.

Mr. Martel: Yon are a plumber.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I see no purpose in allowing additional supplementaries. There will be ample opportunity during the budget debate to explore all of the facets of the increase in OHIP premiums.

JOB CREATION

Mr. S. Smith: A question of the Treasurer, Mr. Speaker: Given the fact that there has been an admitted shortfall of 16,000 jobs created in 1977, and given the action that the Treasurer suggests in order to deal with the creation of temporary jobs by paying part of the salary for each of the temporary employees, can he explain to this House why he will not use basically the same type of mechanism, as we originally suggested, to pay part of the salary for permanent or semipermanent jobs that are desperately needed in the work force?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Again I would make the point that within our resources we feel that we can do a job in terms of summer employment. I would point out to the hon. member that the beneficiary in terms of a savings in expenditures, or therefore a reduction in expenditures, will be mainly to the unemployment insurance fund. If the member feels that there should be more programs for direct job employment, I don’t disagree with him, but I think that it has to come from the government to which will accrue the savings -- namely, those funds which are going --

An hon. member: Very convenient.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary: of course, I’m tempted to answer the minister’s question, except that it doesn’t work that way --

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Let’s hear it.

Mr. S. Smith: -- but he found $105 million in one week. That’s the kind of fat he has in the budget.

An hon. member: What’s your alternative, Stuart?

Mr. S. Smith: But let’s deal now with the question of the Unemployment Insurance Commission saving the money that might come from any job-creation initiative taken at the provincial level. Why has the minister not been negotiating with the federal government since last summer to arrange that any program taken as a provincial initiative in this manner, to pay part of the salaries, would in fact be met by a partial or complete compensation from the unemployment insurance fund, something that might have achieved a desirable result, met with public acclaim and very likely might have achieved a successful negotiated position with the federal government?

Hon. B. Stephenson: The hon. member’s friends said no.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Let me assure the Leader of the Opposition that those suggestions have been made by several ministers on this side of the House together with their federal colleagues -- and, not privately, most publicly, by the first minister of this province.

Mr. S. Smith: Where?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: At the first ministers’ conference.

Mr. S. Smith: In February? You had a year to talk about that.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That’s exactly what the Premier said at the conference. We’ve been saying it before and that’s exactly what he said at the conference.

Mr. Sweeney: We haven’t heard anything since Bramalea.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would have to say, though, that the response has not been forthcoming from Ottawa. I really thought, from that smiling picture --

An hon. member: Always blame Ottawa.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- of the Leader of the Opposition with the Prime Minister of Canada, which appeared on the front page of the Star --

Mr. Breithaupt: It is closer than the Treasurer ever got.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- several weeks ago, that’s probably what they were negotiating and talking about.

Mr. Sweeney: The Treasurer is not answering the question.

An hon. member: Passing the buck again.

Mr. S. Smith: There is no leadership in this province at all.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary to the Treasurer, and I hope he will not just take partisan shots on this.

Mr. Havrot: You’re so pure, oh boy. Pure baloney.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cassidy: I would hope he could get down to the job of providing jobs for people in this province. Can the Treasurer say, in view of the fact that there is nothing being done for the 137,000 young people who are out of work today, what those young people should do during the period of time when his summer job program will not apply?

Mrs. Campbell: Hold their breath.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Some of them, of course, will undoubtedly find employment. Some of them will return to school. Some of them will go into the Ontario Career Action Program.

Mr. Swart: Most of them will remain unemployed.

Mr. Makarchuk: That’s what you’ve been saying for years.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- through higher government expenditures by this government. I say that frankly.

Mr. Cassidy: The Treasurer’s attitude is “Let them eat cake.”

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer is looking for sources of revenue to handle this. Now that his government is going out of the mortgage business, he has a $1 billion portfolio; why doesn’t he put that on the market to the private sector and pay for this increase in OHIP?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I recognize that the member hasn’t been here every day, but I think before --

Mrs. Campbell: He has been ill!

An hon. member: Neither have you, Darcy.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- he asks that question perhaps he should talk to the financial critic of his party who thought that suggestion was disastrous.

Mr. Kerrio: He didn’t miss anything, Darcy. It’s the same story as last year.

An hon. member: The member has egg all over his face.

Mr. Sargent: Why doesn’t the Treasurer answer the question himself?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: If the member for Grey-Bruce would read the budget he would find that’s what we are doing.

Mr. Sargent: I’ve got it right here. It says over the next few years.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: But if he would speak to his financial critic he would find that the Liberal Party apparently thinks that’s the wrong idea. Clean up your act over there!

Mr. S. Smith: The government is going to do nothing.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary. The hon. member for London Centre.

Mr. Peterson: You’re flogging off the furniture to pay for the debts you’ve created.

I just want to understand how the Treasurer can reconcile what he has just said in response to these last three questions with an important statement in the study put out by his ministry, reassessing the scope for fiscal policy in Canada. He says this: “The composition of unemployment in Ontario and the rest of Canada merits more attention. Skilled, permanent jobs for youth is highlighted as the pre-eminent challenge to governments in the immediate future. Required are fundamental structural changes in the economy to enhance competitiveness, increase exports and generate well-paying jobs in the private sector.”

I want to know what the Treasurer is doing in terms of the structural changes? What is he doing in terms of energy policy and industrial policy? What is he relying on, in fact, except a devalued Canadian dollar that he is hoping is going to drag through his growth predictions and provide temporary relief in the imbalance in tourist funds? He has nothing substantive.

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Mr. Peterson: He is relying on our deficient dollar to help him in the short run. I want to know what he is doing in terms of permanent structural changes in the economy of this province?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, the member asked a number of questions. He asked what we were doing about an energy policy. We are supporting Ontario Hydro -- which is more than I can say for his party -- and there are going to be jobs at Elliot Lake because of it. That is point one.

Mr. Kerrie: You are giving a lot more support to Steve Roman, though.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s your policy?

Mr. Lewis: Don’t forget your storm doors.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, in terms of structural changes, I don’t think we will debate structural changes this afternoon.

Mr. Peterson: You used the word here. You used it right here.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I don’t think we are debating structural changes during the question period.

Mr. Peterson: You used it.

Mrs. Campbell: He asked a question. You should answer it.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Was that statement tabled on Tuesday? No, it was tabled two weeks ago.

Mr. Peterson: Yes it was. It was also filed --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has already been asked. If you don’t expect an answer why do you ask the question? You have already asked the question. Have the courtesy to listen to the answer.

Mr. Peterson: My apologies, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, structural changes will not take place in the economy overnight. Structural changes imply a medium-term or long-term commitment to certain objectives which were enunciated and enunciated well by the 11 first ministers of this country. Among those structural changes -- what amount to structural changes -- some of them are a commitment to balance budgets, and we are working to that end; a commitment to reduce the share of government spending and government take in the total economy, and we are working to that end --

Mr. Cassidy: That question was a mistake.

Mr. Wildman: What about branch plants?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- a commitment to deregulation and a commitment to more competition in certain areas, and legislation in some areas has already been introduced in the House.

Mr. Cassidy: We have heard this refrain before and it isn’t working. You’re destroying jobs.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The member talks about an energy policy and I think securing long-term supplies of uranium at the right price is one of those policies and we have done that.

I say to the hon. member he made the same speech last year and we are still waiting for his solutions. Let’s hear them.

An hon. member: You wonder why the House gets unruly when we have to listen to garbage like that.

Mr. S. Smith: The only leadership is coming from this side of the House.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Treasurer.

Given the fact that the government recognizes the need of senior citizens for additional income, and given the findings of a recent social planning council study in Toronto that nearly half the single senior citizens in this city are living below the poverty line and are forced to choose between adequate housing and a decent diet, will the Treasurer explain why the government has not decided to implement the increased tax credits now, but has decided to defer them to some date in the future when market value assessment comes in?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I think the member might want to address that question to the minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Norton). Obviously if we are talking about the necessity of income supplementation --

Mr. Makarchuk: What about the tax credits?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- if we are talking about an increase which is necessary in GAINS, then so be it.

Mr. Foulds: We’re talking about property tax credits.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: What the paper in the budget addresses itself to is one aspect, one part of the expenses of our senior citizens, and that is property taxes.

Mr. Foulds: The flimflam was in your budget.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That is what that paper is all about, a reduction in the burden of property taxes, if there is one, and that is what it is related to.

Mr. Foulds: When?

Mr. Martel: Ten years coming.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It is not related to a whole variety of other things.

I would also say that I don’t think we on this side of the House accept that particular document of the social planning council as the gospel which the leader of the third party accepts it as.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: If I could put the question in more specific terms, why is the Treasurer deferring property tax relief when senior citizens need that relief now?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We would like to see some progress, and I hope to see some progress, towards property tax reform. I recognize that the member opposite thinks that the taxpayers of this province are a bottomless pit who can be mined at any given point in time.

Mr. Bounsall: That is what we are concerned about.

Mr. Makarchuk: It is the other way around.

Mr. Cassidy: You are saying senior citizens can be mined.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: There are undoubtedly going to be certain shifts in many municipalities in this province, with market value assessment particularly, aside from tax reform.

[3:00]

Mr. Martel: That’s been 10 years coming.

Mr. Cooke: Answer the question.

An hon. member: You are raising OHIP premiums 37 per cent.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It seems to me that is the time to make the change or to begin to make the change, coincident with those shifts which may take place through the assessment process.

Ms. Gigantes: They need it now.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I know the member would have us do it twice. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that in fairness to the general taxpayers of the province it may be better to do it at one time rather than to do it twice. I know the member would not agree.

Ms. Gigantes: Is your mother hungry, Darcy?

Mr. Mackenzie: Let them starve a little longer, eh?

Mr. Peterson: I’d like to know just what the Treasurer’s philosophy is. Is there only one taxpayer or are there many taxpayers? On the one hand he argues that there is only one taxpayer paying all of these taxes; on the other hand he says there is no point in solving unemployment here because we are only helping the federal government with their unemployment insurance premiums. What is the Treasurer’s view on that matter?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, if I can be so bold as to suggest --

Mrs. Campbell: You are always bold.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- the question, and it was a good one, was about senior citizens. I don’t look on senior citizens in this province in the context that the question was asked as being “one of the taxpayers.” We put them in a little bit different category than that.

Mr. S. Smith: Yes, hostages for your tax reform. No tax reform, nothing for the senior citizens.

Mr. Swart: By way of supplementary: In view of his comments about fairness in taxation does the Treasurer not realize that according to his own documents tabled last year the net increase in property tax to those in the $5,000 family income range has been 73 per cent and those in the $7,500 income range has been 61 per cent in the last three years,

whereas the average in Ontario has only been 43 per cent? Does he not therefore think it would be fair to --

Interjection.

An hon. member: They’re all frightened of comebacks.

Mr. Swart: -- increase the property tax credits to senior citizens this year so they do not pay more than the rest of the taxpayers in this province?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I would refer the member to the budget paper which details --

An hon. member: This is just the beginning, Darcy. Wait until next week.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- the amount of assistance which is already being given to senior citizens. It is our pledge to do more.

Interjections.

An hon. member: Not this year.

Mr. Swart: Next year.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: But we will do so responsibly --

Mr. Swart: But not this year, what kind of a future --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- and we will bring it before the House when we do it.

Mr. Makarchuk: That is what you have been pledging for the last 30 years.

Mr. Foulds: Like the OHIP increase.

An hon. member: When the next election comes.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: But I would say to the member that if he reads that budget paper he will find that the taxpayers of this province have assumed their responsibilities for senior citizens in many and dramatic ways. And the proportion of taxes already paid by all of us to assist senior citizens is very high already.

Mr. Swart: Most of all the senior citizens, the tax is paid by them.

An hon. member: Half the seniors in Toronto live in poverty.

Interjections.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr. Cassidy: Given the fact that it is 12 years since the Smith committee recommended the move to market value assessment and the government has been farfing around with that ever since that time --

Mr. S. Smith: What?

Mr. Cassidy: -- what assurance do we have that the senior citizens will not have to wait for a further 12 years before this property tax relief is given?

Mr. Conway: What was that word, Michael?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would say that the answer to that question rests in part with all members of this House. If they are prepared to be responsible, then we can get on with the job.

Interjections.

Mr. Martel: You have postponed it at every election.

An hon. member: We’ll bring it in if you’ll support it.

Mr. Lewis: Just stop farfing around over there and get on with it. Just do your job.

Mr. Lewis: Hear, hear!

Interjections.

Mr. Cassidy: There are a few other words that are needed to describe this budget and this Treasurer, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Nixon: There is a perfectly good one already, why don’t you use it?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Define farfing.

REFORESTATION

Mr. Cassidy: A question of the Minister of Natural Resources. There he is; I can see him peeking around the government whip.

In view of the fact that the budget contains no real increase for the Ministry of Natural Resources, can the minister say what has happened to the government promise of two trees to be planted for every one cut, which was so clearly outlined in the Bramalea charter?

Mr. Kennedy: It is winter time. You don’t plant trees in winter.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am sure when you get the details of the budget I think, you will discover that my regeneration moneys have been increased by between $5 million and $0 million for the coming year.

An hon. member: What percentage is that in trees?

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since he is a member of the cabinet can the minister explain why there was absolutely no reference to the needed rebuilding of the forestry industry of this province in the budget which was handed down this week?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, there were no tax changes related to it, therefore there was no need to mention it.

Hon. Mr. Snow: That will come in the estimates, you know.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: Is the minister therefore indicating to us that there will be no changes in the Crown Timber Act and subsequent tax changes with regard to his last statement?

Hon. F. S. Miller: No, I am not indicating that.

Mr. MacDonald: You’re going to have it both ways.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary; the hon. member for Algoma.

Mr. Wildman: Is it correct that the ministry has circulated a new code of ethics, or a rejuvenated code of ethics, for its foresters or for its staff which admonishes them not to publicly criticize the forestry program of the ministry?

Hon. F. S. Miller: How could they? It’s perfect.

Mr. Martel: A perfect mess.

Mr. Reid: Who believes it?

STUDENT ASSISTANCE

Mr. Sweeney: A question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities, Mr. Speaker: In releasing the new student grant program today, how can the minister say that he is firmly convinced that the new program brings greater equity and will be to the advantage of every student when in three significant ways it is clearly a disadvantage: post-graduate and professional school students can’t qualify; families with even lower net income than previously are expected to contribute; and, finally, students’ living expense allowances are going to be even lower than those qualified under the federal plan?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: There’s no doubt that I can say that because, somewhat like my friend in the Ministry of Natural Resources, almost the perfect plan evolved.

Mr. Deans: Oh, don’t get smart.

Mr. Martel: For what class of people?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I won’t go quite so far as to say perfection; that I will leave to my confrere the Minister of Natural Resources.

Mr. Makarchuk: What have you guys been eating over there?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Let me say to the hon. member that I think when he has an opportunity to take a close look at the information he now has in his hand he will see that indeed he is not quite correct on several items. Let me give the hon. member an illustration that perhaps makes the point. I hope so.

Mr. Speaker, this perhaps will be a long reply but I don’t know of any other way of addressing the problem.

We’re trying to compare this year’s plan with last year’s plan and in preparation I had these figures compiled.

Taking the gross income of a family as $8,000, the parental contribution last year would have been zero; it would be zero this year.

With a gross income of $10,000 the parental contribution under the new plan would be $200 if the student is away, and zero if at home.

With a gross income of $12,000, the parental contribution would be $672 under the old plan. Under the new plan it would be $555 if the student is away from home and $70 if the student is at home -- which is considerably less, about $600 less, in that particular illustration.

With a gross income of $14,000, the contribution would have been $1,045 under the old plan. Under the new plan it would be $995 if the student is away from home and $440 if the student is at home.

I could go on to give the hon. member other illustrations. The point that must be made at this time is that if he will take the figures and do them one by one, he will find that the contribution from the parents is less than it was last year -- in contradiction to what the hon. member originally thought.

Mr. Sweeney: Let me say, before I ask a supplementary question, that we also have selected three examples and they don’t work that way. Let me use one precise one, and I would ask the minister to explain how this works: A parent with a net income -- net income meaning what they have got to spend -- of $6,600 can be expected to contribute; that means a net income of $127 a week. How can the minister expect any parent in those circumstances to make a contribution? That’s even lower than it was last year. It depends on where one picks the examples.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: No, I think it doesn’t. First of all, in reply, to give some details of that, I think the member opposite would agree that we likely will have fewer students in the system next year than last year. We have more money. Fewer people, indeed, will be therefore applying for the assistance. It follows, I believe, that there would be more assistance per student. That’s pretty basic and there can be no doubt about that.

Mr. Sweeney: No, it doesn’t follow.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: There’s more money in the program and there are fewer students.

Mr. Sweeney: There was $23 million left over in the budget one year.

Mr. B. Newman: Oh, for crying out loud!

Mr. Sweeney: Just because the minister puts it into the program doesn’t mean he is going to use it.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: It is a little difficult -- I accept this criticism of the plan. In just two minutes of looking at it, one cannot comprehend all of the details. The member asked me where his information was. It was put in the mail to him this morning. I sent him a copy five minutes ago. I suspect he has not had time to look at the whole program and understand it.

Mr. Sweeney: They have been available for months.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: They have not been available to members for months. They were available at 10 o’clock this morning.

Mr. Bounsall: Supplementary: How can the minister possibly explain and justify for those roughly 13,000 students who will be on the Experience ’78 program that when they subtract their allowance expenses from that, there is not enough money to pay the assumed savings that would be required under this program?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: That is another gross illustration of the fact that members of the New Democratic Party, particularly, don’t understand the program. For many years students have wished that their contributions would be assessed on actual earnings. This year, for the very first time, that is exactly what’s going to happen. There is no assumed contribution. It is a direct result of an assessment on the actual earnings. I am afraid the member is absolutely incorrect in the statement he has just made.

I have had the advantage of seeing the release by the New Democratic Party. I can’t begin to tell them the number of errors they have made. I know it wasn’t the member himself but it does have the New Democratic logo on it. There are innumerable errors in the arithmetic in their press release.

Mr. Lewis: You’re just falling apart over there. All of you are coming apart at the seams. There is nothing left.

Mr. Cassidy: If it was so good, the minister would have brought it out two months ago.

Mr. Deans: I have a question for the Minister of Labour but I can’t ask it because I must ask the Solicitor General something with regard to his statement.

OPP ROLE IN STRIKE

Mr. Deans: I want to ask the Solicitor General whether or not the provisions contained in the in-service training manual on strikes that is available, he says, in every detachment library, could be tabled in this House in order that we might determine whether it is appropriate within the direction given for an OPP officer to attempt to drag a woman out of a car while her seatbelt is still in place and while the car is still moving?

Further, I would like to ask him whether it says in there that it is appropriate for the OPP to go into a plant to speak to union employees about the possibility of a strike without first checking and discussing the matter with their representatives? I want to ask him whether he thinks it is right and necessary for the OPP to be involved at all until there is an evident problem?

Finally, I would like to ask him whether he doesn’t believe that by the very nature of their intervention, which was unwarranted and unjustified, starting on Friday afternoon right through until Monday morning when they moved themselves into a situation which to that point had created absolutely no problem, the OPP were not the major part of the problem and not part of the solution at all?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I am sure the manual to which the hon. member refers does not specifically mention an incident regarding a female employee of the plant with her seatbelt on.

Mr. Deans: The woman got hurt, by the way.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: This is the first I have heard of this and I have had representation both from the union and from the police officers in the area.

Mr. MacDonald: Are you going to investigate it?

Mr. McClellan: How come you find out these things so late?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Dealing with the second question, which I feel is much more relevant, I think the hon. member should realize that some days before the strike took place a representative of the union attended at the police detachment headquarters --

[3:15]

Mr. Deans: One woman.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Right -- and asked certain questions regarding picket lines and the conduct of the employees and questions of that nature, very valid questions.

Ms. Gigantes: Very responsible.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Management also wanted the same information, and as a result the sergeant of the detachment decided that everybody should know what the situation was --

Mr. Lewis: That’s just a crock. What a dream world you live in.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- what their rights were, and what their obligations would be in a situation of that kind. I think it is important to realize that these women workers have just been organized and the union has just been certified.

Mr. Lewis: That’s right.

Hon. Ms. Kerr: I realize that, and because of that they wouldn’t be aware of all their rights --

Mr. Mackenzie: Two dollars and eighty-five cents an hour in a sweat shop.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s why you have to be particularly sensitive.

Mr. Warner: They’ve got a union to tell them that.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- and what could take place in the event that the strike occurred. I’m saying that the employees, because they were employees of a plant that was just newly organized --

An hon. member: The Minister of Labour is really protecting the women in this province.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- and because there were certain uncertainties as to what their rights were --

Mr. Cassidy: You’re unbelievable. That’s unbelievable.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- it seemed to make sense to the sergeant of the detachment that everybody in the plant should have that information --

Mr. Cassidy: That means you condone intimidation across this province.

Mr. Deans: They had no right to make that decision.

Mr. Lewis: That’s terrible, terrible.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- and that is why he attended at the plant. I will say this, that this is certainly not a routine procedure by the OPP.

Mr. Foulds: It should not even be an extraordinary one.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: It is not, and I would hope it would not be.

Mr. Martel: What would happen again?

Mr. Foulds: What have you told them?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: But I think under the circumstances there are reasons here why it’s occurred, and another point I want to make is that because the police had this prior information and because the police were told there was a certain amount of intimidation and there could be violence on the picket line --

Mr. Deans: By whom?

Mr. Lewis: Intimidation by whom?

Mr. Warner: By management. They were meddling.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- there was an obligation by the police to deal with the situation to avoid any trouble before the strike took place.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary question: What investigation was undertaken by the police to determine whether or not the information given to them with regard to intimidation, or whatever, was even valid? Let me ask a further supplementary so the minister can answer them both while he’s on his feet. Is it true that he said that it was justified because a lot of the employees really didn’t want the union anyway?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: No, Mr. Speaker. I should have probably have made a point of privilege while answering the hon. member’s question. I didn’t say that which was attributed to me in this morning’s Globe -- the words, “he added that only half the workers of the plant want the union.”

What I said to the reporter was that there was a division of opinion there, that there was some exception by a number of employees as to whether or not they wanted that strike. That’s what I said.

Mr. Deans: That’s irrelevant. They’ve been certified.

Mr. MacDonald: In this country, 60 per cent of the people aren’t in favour of you at election time; that’s a division of opinion.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The members don’t want to take it out of context, that’s why they wanted to know about the legal aspects of the strike; and the other point that I made in reference to the bus was incorrect as well.

Mr. Lupusella: Taking into particular account incidents which have taken place too often in the province of Ontario --

Mr. Deans: Does the minister ever wonder why there are difficulties in picket lines? It’s the mentality of the whole thing.

Mr. Lupusella: -- is the minister ready to introduce legislation regulating strike-breaking in the province of Ontario in order that those incidents will never take place again?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Is that like selling hydro to the poor people in the States?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, that of course is the whole argument about the question of crossing the picket lines. It is something the Minister of Labour would be concerned with, and I would suggest --

Mr. Cassidy: She’s not concerned about it.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- that it probably should be debated rather than answered in this instance.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: This was raised last week. The original question was a four-part question. His second supplementary was a three-part question. There were 17 interjections while the minister was trying to answer. We have spent enough time on it. The hon. member for Armourdale.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: You should send me a copy of your question, Ian.

Mr. Deans: It will be in Hansard.

CLOSING OF SCHOOLS

Mr. McCaffrey: For the Minister of Education: My question concerns the matter of declining student enrolment in Ontario, and the related question of school closings and the Jackson commission. Am I correct in assuming that the ministry does not have a position with regard to school closings in this province --

An hon. member: That’s typical.

Mr. McCaffrey: -- and if that is correct, is it reasonable to assume that that position will be unchanged after the Jackson commission report?

Mr. Martel: Yes, no position afterwards, right.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, it is not reasonable to claim we do not have a position. The position is very clear. It is one of local autonomy -- investing the authority to provide accommodation and to make arrangements for accommodating the students, and that this is to be done by the local school board. It is in the local school board’s jurisdiction and authority to close schools if it so desires.

MANAGEMENT STUDY

Mr. Blundy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. Was his ministry spokesman correctly reported in the Globe and Mail on February 15 in saying that the only reason a full copy of the Currie Coopers and Lybrand management study of the ministry was not released was that it was too technical and expensive to print? Was it for those reasons we must rely on an unsatisfactory edited version? Why can’t we have the full report so that its recommendations can be seen in their full context?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know to whom that statement was attributed. The fact is that what is being referred to as a report, I would rather refer to as background working documents. Also they are rather bulky, and there are only four copies that have been prepared.

Mr. S. Smith: We’ll come to your office and read them.

Hon. Mr. Norton: There were four copies for the members of the steering committee within the ministry. This included myself, my former deputy, my present deputy and the representative of Management Board whom we invited to sit on the steering committee.

Mr. Martel: You can give one away from the former deputy.

Hon. Mr. Norton: There are no other copies in existence to my knowledge. I don’t have any intention of having additional copies of those working documents prepared.

Mr. S. Smith: We’ll read them in your office, how’s that?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I did take steps to immediately release, upon receipt of the report, the full range of recommendations.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I can assure the House that if I were to go to the expense and the problem of trying to reproduce additional copies for the members, they would be terribly disappointed because there is no scandal in the place. There are no personalities referred to. There is none of the stuff that opposition members think is in there.

Mr. S. Smith: Can we read it in your office or not?

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition is repeating himself.

Hon. Mr. Norton: In fact, they are just what I said they are. They are working documents. As far as I’m concerned, for the present and until we have continued to deal with them, I’m not hiding a thing.

Mr. McClellan: Then let’s read them.

Mr. S. Smith: What are you hiding?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Members have copies of every recommendation that is made in that report.

Mr. S. Smith: Then we will come to your office and read it.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I have no intention of producing the working papers at this point in time until we have proceeded further.

Mr. Warner: Then let us read them.

Mr. S. Smith: Then what are you hiding? We’ll come to your office.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I would think it would be one of the most disappointing exercises members might ever engage in.

Mr. S. Smith: Then we will be disappointed.

Mr. Blundy: Mr. Speaker, by way of a supplementary, when the ministry spends $70,000 on a report such as this, does it not seem reasonable that the members of this House, at least, should see that report and benefit from it? I understand this is not the first time the distribution of a report by that ministry has not been made available. If it’s going to cost the ministry that much we’ll take up a collection and Xerox the matter in the minister’s office.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Actually, the Xerox machine in my office is usually busier than to allow for that length of time to be taken up.

Mr. Foulds: I thought it had been replaced by a shredder.

Hon. Mr. Norton: There is simply nothing that is being bidden in the report. I can assure the member that I am being open with them on that point.

Mr. Cassidy: Then make it available.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Perhaps I can take it in excerpts and read it during statements from the ministry from time to time, If members wish, I would be quite happy to do that.

Mr. Martel: Invite us over to read it.

Mr. S. Smith: We’ll read it in your office.

Hon. Mr. Norton: But I’m not intending to spend the money of the taxpayers of this province to duplicate working documents that are for the use of people in my ministry to implement recommendations that I gave to members several weeks ago.

Mr. Martel: Then invite us over to read it.

Mr. Speaker: One final supplementary from the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. S. Smith: Will the minister give one valid reason why we in the opposition should not be permitted to go to his office and read the full reports there and decide for ourselves whether in fact it was a worthwhile venture? One reason.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Everyone here wants me to invite the member over. But, actually, I think there is --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Invite him over and let him bring his own couch.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- a reasonable explanation as to why not.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Norton: The fact of the matter is that I happen -- perhaps just by chance -- to have been elected as a member of the government of this province and I have been charged with certain responsibilities for administrative matters in my ministry, which I am discharging. I have shown the members recommendations that have been made to make certain improvements, and that --

Mr. Warner: The new Jean-Jacques Blais.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- we are proceeding very quickly and very effectively to do that.

Mr. S. Smith: What are you hiding?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I’m hiding nothing. You just see how good a job we do, Stuart, and baby, will you ever be impressed.

Mr. S. Smith: Then we will be disappointed.

An hon. member: You will be Minister of Government Services by then.

Mr. Cassidy: Jed Baldwin would be ashamed of you.

An hon. member: A government of secrecy.

MINI-SKOOLS LIMITED

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, this morning at the Metro social services committee meeting a day-care consultant provided material on Mini-Skools Limited which provides evidence of serious violations of the Day Nurseries Act and regulations. I now want to present this material to the minister and to ask him a number of questions.

Using his powers under regulation 13A of the Act, will the minister review this material and conduct an investigation with respect to Mini-Skools’ financial dealing with the Metro social services, and report back to this House inter alia whether it is true:

1. That Metro awards its subsidy agreements to Mini-Skools without the necessity either of proper financial submission or adequate accounting;

2. Whether subsidy payments made without a signed contract, as is the case this year between Metro social services and Mini-Skools, are legal under the Act;

3. Whether in his opinion the actual profits of Mini-Skools on the Metro subsidy contracts, which are as high as 24 per cent on tax dollar revenue received, are in his opinion a ripoff?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Yes, I will review this material and attempt to answer the hon. member’s questions.

Mrs. Campbell: Not if it costs too much.

Hon. Mr. Norton: As he is aware and has indicated, the contracts or relationships are between Metro and the particular provider of service. I can’t answer those questions at this point but I will.

Mr. McClellan: Supplementary: May I ask the minister, using his powers under Ontario regulations 232, 71,

section 3, will he review the material and conduct an investigation into Mini-Skools’ enrolment practices and child-staff ratios between 1975 and 1977 and report back to this House whether it is true and to what extent:

1. Mini-Skools’ rated capacity exceeds the licence capacity as established by his ministry;

2. That Mini-Skools repeatedly violated licence capacities by over-enrolling at all six Metro day-care centres between 1976 and 1977;

3. That the child-staff ratios at Mini-Skools day-care centres are violated as a matter of habit? Finally, Mr. Speaker, will he --

Interjections.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Put it on the order paper.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The original question was a three-part question. The hon. minister indicated that he would take it as notice, that he would review the information made available to him and get back. Surely if the response isn’t complete, then supplementaries may be appropriate at that time.

Mr. McClellan: If I may, on a point of order, I had asked the minister to report back on a number of points. I have one small point to finish off: Will the minister report to us why Mini-Skools’ licence should not be revoked under the provision of

section 8 of the Act? And one final supplementary, if I may, Mr. Speaker --

Interjections.

Hon. B. Stephenson: No bloody way.

[3:30]

OMB HEARINGS

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, this is in answer to a question that was asked by the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) of the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch). The answer is some three pages and it has to do with expediting hearings of the Ontario Municipal Board. I am prepared to give the answer now or in the form of a statement tomorrow morning.

Mr. Speaker: Give it as a statement tomorrow morning.

MIDLAND DISPUTE

Mr. Epp: I have a question for the Treasurer. Given that he is the minister responsible for municipal affairs, and given that both elected and private citizens in the town of Midland have asked for a public inquiry into the affairs of the municipality, and given the fact that more than 150 signatures were on the petition, would the minister consider holding a commission of inquiry into the affairs of the municipal council of Midland?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, as I recall, we have written back to the petitioners and asked them why there should be an inquiry. To the best of my knowledge they have not indicated to our satisfaction that there are substantial reasons for an inquiry. As I recall -- I am not entirely sure of this -- I think the council purchased some property and these petitioners disagreed with that purchase. I am doing this by recollection, but my view is that what has been raised to date does not necessitate any kind of an inquiry -- a judicial inquiry by a judge, or a provincial inquiry. However, if the petitioners have additional information we will be glad to take another look at it.

HIGHWAY 555

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs. In view of the comments by the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr.

Snow), quoted in the Sault Daily Star of February 24, 1978, that he was fully aware of the desire of the people of Blind River to have Highway 555 completed to Elliot Lake, and “it is up to the Northern Affairs ministry to set the priorities”; in view of the fact that the people of the north shore of Elliot Lake have submitted to the Minister of Transportation and Communications a petition with over 1,300 names requesting the completion of the Granary Lake Road, can the minister indicate when his ministry will make a decision on this project, and whether or not that will be in the affirmative?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I can’t say that the decision will be in the affirmative. I can’t even tell the hon. member when the priority will be established. It will be some considerable time; but I can assure him we are looking into all aspects of it. I am sure the hon. member is aware of the problems --

Mr. Cassidy: Sure; the minister is the problem.

Mr. Makarchuk: You are waiting until the election, are you, Leo?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- relating to that particular road going into the town of Elliot Lake. There is some concern expressed by that particular community and I think it is fair to say there is not a great deal of enthusiasm from the Elliot Lake end. We are looking at all aspects of it.

Mr. Wildman: Supplementary: In view of the expansion of Elliot Lake, which is being encouraged by this government, to say the least, and also in view of the fact that the council of the town of Elliot Lake recently passed a resolution that it would agree to the completion of the Granary Lake Road, will those matters be taken into account in making the decision?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes. I think that, further to this, we will wait the results of the environmental bearings that are at present going on and will take place with regard to the radon gas problem in Elliot Lake, which will have a bearing on the development in that particular community.

Mr. Reid: There is a gas problem around here.

ELDERLY PERSONS’ CENTRES

Mr. Bolan: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Is the minister aware of the provincial-municipal grants reform committee’s proposal that the grants to elderly persons’ centres be eliminated, and can the House have his assurance that this proposal will not be acted upon, and that the elderly persons’ centres will continue to receive these grants?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I can assure the hon. member opposite that those are simply recommendations by a committee. I have not given any consideration whatsoever to the implementation of such matters with respect to those programs. At this point, it is my full intention to continue as we have with those centres.

MINING TAX

Mr. Laughren: A question for the Minister of the Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs: Is the Treasurer aware of the testimony of both Inco and Falconbridge before the select committee on the layoffs that the problems they were facing in the mining industry had nothing to do with the level of taxation but rather with world markets? If he is aware of that testimony, why has he granted further exemptions and concessions in his budget which will reduce the income to the province from mining in this next fiscal year to only $33 million?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I’m not sure I’m aware of the specific testimony but I’m aware of that statement or feeling. I do not look for the package of incentives which will be brought forward by my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. F. S. Miller) to create jobs tomorrow. I think the member is well aware as a northern member that --

Mr. Cassidy: At least he’s bringing it into the Legislature.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- we have been concerned, and I’m sure the member has been concerned, for several years now that we haven’t had the level of exploration or the level of activity in terms of new mines --

Mr. Martel: This government used to blame that on Barrett. What’s happening here?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- coming on stream either to add to the total mining production or to replace production which may otherwise disappear in a period of time as mines run out. So, the package is not going to have any significance in so far as the world of the current world metal oversupply is concerned, but hopefully it will position our industry to take advantage when the cycle turns in two, three, four or five years.

As the member is well aware, it takes four or five years to bring a mine to the production stage. We hope to encourage through this package a greater exploration and hopefully some new mines. Let me put it this way: if they came into production tomorrow, they would obviously, as the member has said, be adding to a metal glut at the moment. That is not the purpose of the package.

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary: Would the Treasurer indicate to us how granting the processing allowances for offshore processing against Ontario profits will create any kind of employment in the province of Ontario? Would he not agree that in effect he is exporting jobs, not creating new ones or protecting existing ones in this province?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No doubt the Minister of Natural Resources would say more about this. Let me simply say I think that particular change is recognizing the reality of life. It’s unrealistic to expect that either the existing refinery in Wales or in Norway is going to be closed down and moved to Canada. I think it simply faces the facts of life. I don’t think we could develop incentives powerful enough or large enough to do it in the absence of the stick approach, which essentially the present regulation is.

Mr. Cassidy: Why not make them be responsible?

Mr. Laughren: Boy, wouldn’t I like to play poker with the Treasurer. They have bluffed you. For 45 years Falconbridge has bluffed you.

Mr. Cassidy: There is not a job for five years in that concession.

Mr. Laughren: Does the Treasurer ever play poker?

Mr. Martel: They keep winning the game.

PETITION

MINISTRY OF HEALTH REPORT

Mr. Conway: Pursuant to provisional order 7 of the Legislative Assembly, we, the undersigned members of the assembly, hereby petition that the annual report of the Ontario Ministry of Health for 1976-77, tabled November 14, 1977, be referred to the standing committee on social development for such consideration and report as the committee may determine.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that that is a petition to the House.

Mr. Conway: Yes, it is, Mr. Speaker, under provisional standing order 7. I signed it myself.

Mr. Speaker: Does it have 20 signatures?

Mr. Conway: Yes, it does.

Mrs. Campbell: Yes, it does.

Mr. Speaker: It’s agreed then?

Agreed.

MOTION

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that when the House adjourns at 6 p.m. on Thursday, March 16, it will stand adjourned until Tuesday, March 28, at 2 p.m.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McKeough moved first reading of Bill 30,

An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act, 1977.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I have several minor amendments to the Municipal Elections Act. As a result of the change of the election date from December to November it was necessary to specify in the Act that the term of office of the present incumbents will expire on the last day of November 1978. Where such members are paid an annual allowance, the allowance for the year 1978 shall be reduced accordingly. So there is an amendment to that effect.

The second amendment is designed to facilitate the verification of nominators. Others clarify the procedures to be followed when the number of candidates nominated at the end of nomination day is not sufficient to fill the number of vacancies that exist. Those nominated will be acclaimed, and additional nominations for the remaining vacancies may be received on the Wednesday following nomination day. On the Wednesday following nomination day the acclamation provisions will also apply similarly.

The remaining amendments clear up the procedure to be followed when a new, as opposed to a regular, election is required to be held.

I might add that as a result of the change in the date in the Municipal Elections Act there will be a series of amendments required to the Municipal Act and the regional Acts in order that county and regional councils can select the heads of council and set up their committee structure at an earlier date.

MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Henderson moved first reading of Bill 31,

An Act to amend the Ministry of Government Services Act, 1973.

Motion agreed to.

An hon. member: It’s an increase in salary, is it, Lorne?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the amendment is to clarify the authority of staff of the ministry to carry out some of the responsibilities of the minister as they may be delegated by the minister to such staff from time to time.

Mr. Foulds: Need this to fix the Thunder Bay courthouse?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: It may be.

ANSWER TO PETITION

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day I wish to table the response to petition 2 presented to the House.

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the answers to questions 1 and 11, standing on the order paper.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS

GASOLINE AND HEATING OIL UNIFORM PRICING ACT

Mr. Lane moved second reading of Bill 3,

An Act to require a Single Price for Gasoline and Heating Oil sold in Ontario by a Wholesaler.

Mr. Lane: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill was to require a wholesaler of gasoline and heating oils in Ontario to sell gasoline and heating oil products at a single price throughout the province, thereby preventing the wholesaler from charging a higher price in certain regions. I understand I have 20 minutes to speak on my bill, and if I wish I can reserve some part of that time for summing up after other speakers have been heard.

Ms. Speaker: That is correct.

Mr. Lane: Thank you. I would like to point out that my colleagues the members for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) and Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot) are both in support of this bill and would like to be able to speak on it. They are not able to be here and the time will not allow them to speak, in any case. I want that on the record.

Mr. Wildman: He is right over there.

Mr. Lane: They will not be here later in the afternoon.

I guess the first question is, why do I bring this bill before the House?

Mr. Foulds: That is a good question.

Mr. Lane: The reason I do that is that I want some answers that I haven’t been able to get. I want to find out why there are 17 or 18 cents per gallon differences in price for the same grade of fuel at various places in this province.

Mr. Bolan: Because of the tax structure.

Mr. Mancini: Because of 35 years of Tory rule.

Mr. Lane: Yesterday in Toronto, regular gas was selling at 91.9 cents. In Elliot Lake the same gasoline was selling for $1.08. On Manitoulin it was selling for $1.05 and in Sudbury it was selling for 91.5 cents.

[3:45]

My understanding is that to put a gallon of gasoline on the market costs about 87.9 cents, and it is broken down like this: Ontario gasoline tax, 19 cents; federal excise tax, 10 cents; federal sales tax, 4.9 cents; average dealer margin, 8.5 cents; cost of refining, distributing and marketing, 9.5 cents; and cost of crude oil, 36 cents -- for a total of 87.9 cents a gallon.

I would just point out that in Elliot Lake the price of gasoline yesterday was slightly more than 20 cents per gallon higher than the cost of producing it.

It’s a conundrum to me why a farmer who has on his farm a fuel tank -- holding 500 or 1,000 gallons in some cases -- can go to a service station and put 10 or 15 gallons of gasoline in his tractor for fewer cents per gallon than the cost of getting it delivered to the storage tank on his farm. This gasoline is not going through a service outlet. It is not being pumped by a dealer. It seems to me that a part of that average of 8.5 cents that’s going to the dealer should be available to the farmer as a benefit for buying 500 or 1,000 gallons at a time.

I have talked to different people in different oil companies over a period of years. This problem is not a new one as far as I am concerned. As those hon. members who were around here in 1972 know, I raised the matter when I introduced a bill last May -- the same bill as I am speaking on today, as a matter of fact -- but, because we were forced into an election, the bill died on the order paper and I didn’t get a chance to debate it. But I still want some answers --

Mr. Ruston: The election was forced by your leader.

Mr. Wildman: If we had changed the government, we might have got some legislation.

Mr. Lane: We were forced into an election, as the hon. gentlemen will recall.

Mr. Wildman: John, if we had changed the government, we would have had some decent legislation.

Mr. Lane: At one point I was told that the difference in price is because of the transportation cost. That is not a fact.

Mr. Wildman: That’s right. You’re right.

Mr. Lane: In my riding we have storage tanks at Little Current and at Cutler, and the big tanker that comes from Sudbury hauls the gas a total of 160 miles -- 80 miles each way. The little retailer in Little Current can follow that truck to Sudbury and fill his gas tank at the pump there cheaper than he can get the gas dumped in his storage tanks at Little Current for resale to his customers. There’s something sadly wrong with the situation when that happens, but it certainly isn’t a transportation problem.

Mr. Wildman: No, it is free enterprise.

Mr. Ruston: Ever heard of competition?

Mr. Lane: The same thing goes for Elliot Lake. If people at Elliot Lake are getting their gas from the storage tanks at Cutler, it involves a round trip of about 56 miles as opposed to 160 miles return to haul the gas from Sudbury. Despite that, the gas in Elliot Lake yesterday cost $1.08 a gallon and in Sudbury it was 91.5 cents -- and the two places are only 100 miles apart. So there is something wrong with the situation.

Mr. Wildman: Right.

Mr. Lane: Apart from mining in Elliot Lake and paper mills in Espanola, the bulk of my riding is made up of farming and tourism. The farmers have been selling their cattle below the cost for production for the last three or four years, and many tourist camp operators find it very difficult to make any money because of overhead costs. Would-be visitors to the area are looking at areas where gas prices are cheaper; and even if gas prices were the same in the north as they are in the south gas would still cost more, because it is farther from point A to point B.

Anybody going there for a holiday or living there has to use more gas; so if they are paying the same price, they are still paying more. If they are paying 10 cents a gallon or 15 cents a gallon more, then of course they are paying a lot more. That is what I am complaining about.

Mr. Wildman: They should have a lower price.

Mr. Lane: I have a letter here from the Manitoulin Tourist Association. It has a membership of 150 different firms; 66 of these people are camp operators and 84 are associate members. I noticed, in going over the list, that 15 of these people have a retail gasoline sales outlet on their premises.

The letter I refer to is addressed to the Minister of Energy. It says:

“Dear Mr. Minister: It is obvious that if the tourist industry is to survive in northeastern Ontario there must be an equalization in the prices of gasoline at the wholesale level.”

Mr. Foulds: What was the minister’s reply?

Mr. Lane: It says: “As you know, the north country is very attractive to tourists because of its great beauty, but it mainly consists of a vast rural countryside with small towns and villages scattered throughout. The distances are great.”

Mr. Foulds: Rural countryside? Six of the seats are held by New Democrats.

Mr. Lane: It continues: “The price of gasoline ranges as much as 17 cents per gallon within the large heavily populated areas and the sparsely populated areas of this province. When a family is looking for a place to spend their vacation, the attractions of northern Ontario do not compete well with other parts of Canada or even other countries, when many of the miles to be travelled are to be considered in relation to the fact that the prices of gasoline are well over a dollar a gallon. Something must be done and done soon.

“All the tourist operators and affiliated members of this association which appear on that tax list” -- that’s the 150 people I was referring to -- “and thousands of other northerners are in full support of our member, John Lane, in his efforts to get the wholesale price for gasoline and heating oil equalized across this province. We hope the government gives his private bill on this matter its full support.”

The letter is signed by Carl Irwin, secretary.

Mr. Wildman: Do you have a copy of the minister’s answer?

Mr. Foulds: What was the minister’s reply?

Mr. Lane: I don’t know.

Mr. Wildman: Is the minister going to speak in the debate?

Mr. Reed: Come on over to this side.

Mr. Lane: In an effect to find out why we have this discrepancy in prices, I’ve asked some other officials from other oil companies, when I couldn’t live with the transportation problem, and they explained to me that wasn’t the problem.

Mr. Wildman: That’s right. It isn’t.

Mr. Lane: One official quoted the reason for the difference in price between Sudbury and Manitoulin Island as being that the sale price is based on Toronto price, plus shipping cost. He said: “If one of our dealers cannot meet the competition, we place him on consignment, which means we buy back all of the gas in his tanks, regardless of the loss, and pay him eight cents a gallon to sell our gas to meet the competition at that point.”

Mr. Wildman: That’s the thing right there.

Mr. Lane: He went on to say that there is as much as 300,000 barrels of surplus gas being produced per day.

Mr. Philip: It’s a lot cheaper for the gypsies to take a truckload of gas than a truckload of milk.

Mr. Wildman: That’s right.

Mr. Lane: It’s a little hard to accept because it’s not so very long ago since we were told there was a shortage of fuel and we should not burn very much gasoline. Yet here’s a gentleman who says we have a surplus production of over 300,000 barrels a day. That’s a lot of gas. Sometimes when there’s a surplus, one doesn’t pay too much money for it, but we’re paying $1.08 in Elliot Lake.

Another official of the same company said: “There is too much refining capacity chasing too little volume and, with another refinery under construction in Ontario, this problem of overcapacity is going to get worse before it gets better.” It sounds as if there are no better days ahead, according to the officials of that particular company.

None of these statements really provides acceptable answers to a very serious problem. It is out of sheer frustration on behalf of my constituents and myself that I bring this bill for debate into this House. I personally think the government should stay out of the marketplace as much as possible. I would also hope to keep regulations and legislation to a minimum because sometimes, I’m sure, we interfere in people’s lives and businesses too much. But somehow this great difference in price between one point in this province and another must be corrected.

After all, we are all Ontarians. If our federal government had had the foresight 25 years ago to come up with some good energy policy for Canada, the provinces would now be sharing our resources one with the other and we would be depending on each other so much we would not have to worry about unity or these crazy gasoline prices. But, of course, hindsight is a lot easier than foresight.

I’ll now listen to what other speakers have to say on this matter. I’d like to use whatever time is left of my 20 minutes to sum up after they have spoken.

Mr. Reed: I appreciate very much the intent of the member for Manitoulin or Algoma Manitoulin who wants answers to this problem.

Mr. Foulds: You don’t even know where the riding is.

Mr. Reed: I’m learning.

Mr. Kerrio: Are we supposed to?

Mr. Reed: We all want answers to this problem. Hopefully, through the course of the debate, information and points of view will be exchanged that will perhaps help to put a better perspective on the problem.

I want to say that I sympathize with the concern the member has about the discrepancy in gasoline and heating oil prices in northern Ontario. I would submit to him that if the provincial government had moved to provide some tax dispensation for that fuel some years ago when the Liberal Party asked for it, this bill would probably not have to be presented today.

I would also ask him, getting into the content of the bill, what in heaven’s name is a wholesale price in the petroleum industry? It is a very difficult thing to assess.

Mr. Foulds: Good question.

Mr. Reed: I have done some investigating and I am even more confused now than I was before, and I guess I was pretty confused before. We have things like the delivered price, which is the price the oil company delivers to its branded dealer, and that includes the cost of production plus certain other incurred costs. We have the rack price, which is, I suppose, the price an unbranded dealer pays, in cash or whatever, to the oil company when he goes down and makes a block purchase of gasoline. That does not include cost of transportation; it doesn’t include the cost awarded to the branding of the product or the sale cost that is incurred.

Then we have what is called the posted tank-wagon price which, I understand, is the price paid by farmers and heating oil customers. So we have a whole hodgepodge of bases to assess. Then we add to that the fact that the forces of competition are very active in the petroleum industry at the present time.

Mr. Wildman: To the detriment of the consumer.

Mr. Reed: I will go on to explain that it is currently very much to the advantage of the consumer --

Mr. Wildman: Only in some areas.

Mr. Reed: -- that the forces of competition are operating just now.

We have an overbuilding of refinery capacity in the province of Ontario and it is being further extended in Nanticoke at the present time; to such an extent that if you asked Texaco privately how they assessed their prospects with the Nanticoke refinery, they will probably tell you that they wish they had not considered it.

This overbuilding of refinery capacity is general around the world -- the Arabs did it; the Europeans did it; we did it in North America. As a result, anyone who has studied the economics of refinery petroleum knows that in order to break even we have got to keep the refinery moving at about 85 per cent capacity.

The projections about growth and consumption did not pan out in recent years. So, consequently, last year, the consumption of petroleum in Ontario was revised by one oil company three times during the course of the year. It started out at something around four per cent or a little more in terms of the projected growth. Last June or July, if I remember correctly, it was revised downward in the three per cent area, and it came out at the end of 1977 at two per cent.

So we can see that the petroleum companies made an error. All of the petroleum companies across the world made an error. That error is currently working to the advantage of the consumer --

[4:00]

Mr. Wildman: Only in some areas.

Mr. Reed: In some areas, quite correct. In three areas of northern Ontario -- the member for Algoma-Manitoulin pointed out one area -- the price of gasoline is lower today than it is in Toronto.

Mr. Wildman: That’s right.

Mr. Reed: That’s the result of competitive forces. They’re involved in a very hot war in order to try to keep their refineries going. I would submit to the member that if we were to introduce a standardized wholesale price across Ontario those localized advantages would of necessity be brought to an end. I hope the members of this House would be prepared to live with that eventuality should they vote in favour of that.

There are a few other factors which should be pointed out too. First of all there are some petroleum companies who do not operate in northern Ontario, so the problem is not relevant to them. The Act states in

section 6 that the minister may make regulations exempting any wholesaler, either generally or in respect of a particular sale or a particular class of sale. I would suppose the reason for this inclusion would be to exempt those companies who are not operating in northern Ontario. Let me submit this thought to the member, that if those exemptions were made, the competitive forces of course would once again take over. We would then experience a greater disparity than we have at the present time. This is of particular concern.

It is also of concern to me that the incentive for investment by the petroleum companies in northern Ontario would be diminished by these resulting exemptions. It would stand to reason that if the petroleum company considered that it would elect to do business in its largest-volume area, then one would consider that it might divest its holdings in northern Ontario in order to qualify for such an exemption as is contained in this bill. I hope the member for Algoma-Manitoulin might have something to say about that in rebuttal.

Whether or not we should give this bill our support, I suppose, is a question of being seen to be concerned about the problem in northern Ontario, as opposed to getting down to the nitty-gritty and actually being able to do something about it. While I support, in every respect, any move to allow us to be able to come to grips with this very real problem, I see only in this bill the ability to be seen to do something. I really can’t find in this bill the means by which these necessary corrections -- and we all agree that they are needed -- can be made.

The member quite rightly pointed out some of the cost awards and said that distribution was not a major factor here. It is a factor and it’s an important one.

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

Mr. Reed: All right, Mr. Speaker, thank you. In conclusion, then, I would say that while this is a free vote, I will not be able to support this bill. But I would, on the other hand, support an alternative for consideration of the reduction in taxation.

Mr. Wildman: I rise in support of the purpose of this bill, which is to reduce the excessively high gasoline prices in the north and in rural areas of the province.

I’d like to point out, in relation to what the member for Halton-Burlington was saying, I appreciate his concern, as a southern Ontario member, for northern Ontario. I’d like to point out that the problem the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane) is attempting to address in this bill is not just the problem of northern Ontario but a problem of rural Ontario generally.

It’s a problem for rural and small communities throughout the province and not just the north. Obviously, as a northern member, along with the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, most of what we might have to say relates to the north. But this is a problem, as the member for Halton-Burlington indicated, in relation to competition especially; I think that’s what we have to look at.

I said I was supporting the purpose of the bill; however, I must say that it’s certainly my position that this bill would require extensive amendments in order for it to be effective in doing what it purports to do.

Mr. Foulds: It has to be rewritten.

Mr. Wildman: Obviously, something has to be done to equalize the differences in prices between the competitive markets of places like Toronto and other, rural parts of southern Ontario, but it should be pointed out for the benefit of the member for Halton-Burlington that places like Timmins, Sault Ste. Marie and Sudbury have prices which, in some cases, are comparable to the ones in Toronto. It’s the small communities outside of those centres that are suffering from the exorbitant gasoline prices that we now face.

Mr. Foulds: And Thunder Bay.

Mr. Wildman: Yes. The price of gasoline in cities like Sault Ste. Marie and Timmins is less than 90 cents a gallon.

Mr. Gaunt: And Wingham.

Mr. Wildman: When the drivers drive out of those cities into the more isolated communities and have to stop for gasoline then they face paying 10 cents to 20 cents more per gallon.

I can give you a couple of examples in my riding, Mr. Speaker. In the Sault Ste. Marie area the price of regular gasoline is 88.9 cents a gallon. In Blind River, which is close to Elliot Lake, to which the member for Algoma-Manitoulin referred, the same gasoline purchased for 88.9 cents a gallon in the Sault Ste. Marie costs over 95 cents.

If you go north of the Sault, Mr. Speaker, you run into even more serious problems. Up there they don’t sell gas by the gallon any more, they sell it by the half gallon. I think that’s to try and hoodwink the tourists. They see a sign saying “52 cents” or “56 cents” and they say, “What a bargain.” They drive in and find out when they get in there that the price in White River is $1.10 a gallon. The price in Wawa is $1.11 a gallon. It’s the same in Chapleau. In Hornepayne and Schreiber it’s $1.13 a gallon.

Mr. Foulds: Is that for unleaded gasoline?

Mr. Wildman: No, this is regular gasoline that I’m talking about. Unleaded gasoline is more expensive and as more cars require unleaded gasoline you’re paying even more.

An interesting point is that seven miles from Wawa, where you’re paying $1.1