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

May 29, 1978

31st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L072 - Mon 29 May 1978 / Lun 29 mai 1978

DEATH OF ALDO MORO

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CANADA WEEK

TEACHER DISPUTES

ORAL QUESTIONS

CHAIN STORE DISCOUNTS

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

INJURED WORKERS

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION

CHAIN STORE DISCOUNTS

TEACHERS’ SALARIES

FLECK MANUFACTURING COMPANY

BURLINGTON ZONING DISPUTE

WELFARE RECIPIENTS

GREENHOUSE HEATING

EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES

PRAXIS INVESTIGATION

FLECK MANUFACTURING COMPANY

CHAIN STORE DISCOUNTS

TIME FOR QUESTIONS

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION

REPORT

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

SIMCOE DAY ACT

CONSUMER PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS (CONTINUED)

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

DEATH OF ALDO MORO

Mr. Speaker: I would like to inform the honourable members that I have received a reply from the President of the Senate of Italy in response to the resolution that was passed during the unfortunate incident concerning the former Prime Minister, Aldo Moro. I would like to read it for the benefit of the members.

“Dear Mr. Speaker,

“The resolution passed by the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario for the tragic death of the Honourable Aldo Moro is a most significant tribute to the memory of a great statesman and a great friend. May I ask you to accept personally and to extend to your honourable colleagues the feelings of our deep gratitude for your sincere participation in our sorrow in this very sad occasion.

“Yours very sincerely,

“Amintore Fanfani, President of the Senate of the Republic of Italy.”

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CANADA WEEK

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’d like to share with members of the House the plans for the Ontario government’s participation in helping to celebrate our 111th birthday.

Mr. Peterson: Are you that old?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Canada’s 111th birthday.

Mr. Peterson: I thought it was the number of years you had been in office.

Hon. Mr. Davis: First of all, it is our intention to issue a proclamation declaring the week of June 25 to July 1 as Canada Week in Ontario. Through this proclamation, we will be calling upon citizens at every level, municipalities, community groups and private organizations across the province to organize events that will recall our country’s great past, rejoice in its vibrant present and express confidence in its equally vital future.

A feature of this year’s celebrations is the initiative taken by the federal government to link various provinces with each other so that through their shared celebrations Canadians may come to know one another better no matter where they might live and no matter how different their lifestyles.

I will say at the outset we are delighted that Ontario has been linked in this celebration to Saskatchewan. I’m sure I speak for all the citizens of Ontario when I say we look forward to this opportunity to learn more about our fellow Canadians in that proud province. I know from the start that we will like what we see and learn because many of us in the past have had the opportunity to visit Saskatchewan and enjoy the warm hospitality of its citizens.

I think some here, who may still be inclined to view Saskatchewan as vast waving fields of wheat, will be pleasantly surprised to learn of its cosmopolitan cities, centres of learning and cultural activities.

Mr. Cassidy: And excellent politics.

Mr. Martel: That just about killed you.

Hon. Mr. Davis: My intention was not to make it clear that this relationship with Saskatchewan didn’t extend into the area of government.

Mr. Cassidy: I didn’t want it to be un-noted.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think some in that province, who have visions of factory chimneys and skyscrapers when they think of our province, will also be surprised to learn of our great agricultural heritage --

Mr. Bradley: Fast disappearing.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and our vast and rugged hinterland which still challenges the adventurous. The entire exercise, I am sure, will reveal that we share much in common and that where we differ it is in such a way as to earn each other’s respect and support.

Towards this end, the government is sponsoring, along with the Ontario Committee for Canadian Unity, a special Ontario-Saskatchewan exhibition. This will be officially opened in the Macdonald Gallery by Her Honour, the Lieutenant Governor, at noon on June 27, and I would invite those members who can to attend on that occasion.

We also intend to adopt our postage meter during the month of June so that all government mail will carry the imprint of “Semaine du Canada Week 1978” with the hope of creating awareness of this very special time.

As well, the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) is writing the chairmen of school boards and the directors of education across the province encouraging them to develop events and celebrations that will enable our young people to participate fully in Canada’s birthday. We are suggesting, because schools will likely be closed during that week, that they might hold their celebrations in advance, so as not to interfere with exams.

As a way to encourage further interest among the young people, a Canada Week poster contest will be held in all elementary schools. The four winners of this contest will go on an exchange visit to Saskatchewan.

Of course, we here in Ontario will hold our traditional July 1 celebrations at Queen’s Park complete with hot dogs, entertainment and other ceremonies to suitably mark this historic day.

These, then, are some of the ways the 111th birthday of our great nation will be celebrated. I am one of those who approaches these festivities in a positive manner, viewing them as an excellent opportunity for all of us here in Ontario and Quebec and across the land to demonstrate our support and gratitude for a national framework that has done so much to fulfil the expectations of the people. In this spirit, I urge the members here to play their

part in making these celebrations a success in their communities across this province.

We have much to be thankful for as Canadians, for what we have accomplished in the past and for what awaits us in the future. The elements of citizenship, of nationhood that we share, those attributes of compassion and goodwill, and our eagerness to assure equal opportunities to all who have joined in the great adventure that is Canada, make this so.

TEACHER DISPUTES

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, during the past two weeks, on several occasions in this House I have been asked about the negotiations between the Wentworth County Board of Education and its secondary school teachers and the Essex County Board of Education and its secondary school teachers.

I am pleased to advise the members of the House that an agreement has been reached between the Wentworth County Board of Education and its secondary school teachers in which the contract for 1977-78 has been finalized. In due course, the parties will return to the table with Mr. Martin Teplitsky as mediator to resolve the contract for 1978-79. Should negotiations be unsuccessful, Mr. Teplitsky will issue an arbitrator’s award. I understand the teachers have returned to the schools today and that classes will resume on Tuesday, May 30.

Also, on Friday, May 26, the Essex County Board of Education and its secondary school teachers reached a tentative agreement for a contract running from September 1, 1977 to August 31, 1980. The parties will be meeting to vote on the terms of the contract on Tuesday, May 30. If it is approved, the schools will reopen on Wednesday, May 31.

I would like to congratulate the parties in both of these disputes for having reached settlements within the options available to them under the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act, 1975.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CHAIN STORE DISCOUNTS

Mr. S. Smith: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. This is a question we were chatting about in committee but never did have an answer. It had to do with his reference in the House to volume discounts as being an acceptable procedure.

Could the minister explain to the House what in his view constitutes a volume discount? In particular, does he differentiate between a discount which is genuinely related to the benefits of doing business in bulk or in larger volume as opposed to a discount which is a consequence of coercion -- one which is allegedly related to volume but is really related to control of the retail market by one or two or three large chains?

Can he tell us, for instance, by way of explaining this, what he in his experience would regard as a reasonable discount on milk between a chain store and an independent store, given the true benefits of doing business in volume?

Hon. W. Newman: My comments when talking about volume discounts, were related to other commodities and situations where there is a backup of commodities. I’d like to point out to the Leader of the Opposition that my view has been, and will always be, that if there is any illegal or unfair trade practice in the agricultural food industry, we’ll certainly take the appropriate action.

I can go back in history to show where we have stepped in and the Ontario Food Council has taken action on several occasions. I believe those came up in committee. When you’re specifically talking about volume discounts and how they relate to milk, I suppose the analogy would be that you pay more for a bag of corn than you would for a truckload of corn.

I would point out to the honourable member that as far as volume discounts are concerned, and I assume he is talking of discounts between the processor and the chain or whichever other group, there are several factors that come into play; in this particular instance, the size of the truck that’s handling it, the amount of products he is handling, what kind of milk is being handled, whether it’s two per cent or 3.25 per cent, or whether he is carrying other commodities.

Those are only a few of the concerns as far as volume discount is concerned. All these have to be taken into consideration. What is the credit risk? What do the processors need as far as volume is concerned? The type and size of the store? Whether they unload on the platform in front of the store or actually put them on the shelves? There are many factors as far as volume discounts are concerned. I just mentioned a few of them.

Of course, volume discounts do reflect the economics of scale and are common in business. There are many factors, but as far as anything that is an illegal or unethical practice is concerned, as I said before, I am opposed to them. I gave you an example of a few of the factors that are taken into consideration in volume discounts on milk and probably other commodities too.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary: There is no disagreement between myself and what the minister has said, but could the minister give us some rough figures as to what should be the differential in price based on the benefits of economies of scale between selling milk to a chain store or selling milk to a smaller independent in the same area?

Does the minister have any ball-park figures to guide him? Is there any number that would lead the minister to wonder whether this was really a volume discount or a form of coercion because of control of the retail market? Does the minister draw that distinction in his own mind? Does he have some rough ball-park figure he can give us?

Hon. W. Newman: It’s very difficult to give an actual figure of what the volume discount rate should be. As I said, it depends on many factors, and I’ve outlined six or seven for the member. It might vary from store to store or from a small independent, or depend on the volume, the truck, the size or whether they’re carrying anything else. It’s pretty hard to say.

Mr. S. Smith: What, two per cent, five per cent?

Hon. W. Newman: No, I’m not going to give you ball-park figures because it can vary from area to area.

Mr. Cassidy: Is the minister aware that Dominion Stores, for example, charges a $5,000 listing fee in order that a particular grocery product can be listed in its largest stores and that the listing fee is more substantial in order to have that same product carried by all the various sizes of supermarkets which the Dominion Stores chain has? Can he say what conceivable benefit, if any, that it is to the consumers of the province of Ontario and if it is of no benefit to the consumer is it not simply a means of augmenting Dominion Stores profits?

Hon. W. Newman: No, I wouldn’t say that. But Loblaws are coming to our committee discussions tomorrow night and, hopefully, Dominion Stores will be there either tomorrow night or Wednesday morning. We will be questioning them at some length on shelf space. I don’t know which particular products the honourable member is talking about with regard to the listing fee. Is it a farm product or some other product? If it’s some other product, does the honourable member wish to tell me which one?

Mr. Cassidy: Processed products, the minister should know.

Hon. W. Newman: I beg your pardon? Oh, yes, they only have about 10,000 items in each store and I should know them all. I don’t know them all.

Mr. Lewis: That’s a weakness.

[2:15]

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary: Is the minister drawing a distinction between a genuine discount related to the benefits and the economies of scale versus a so-called volume discount which is really a consequence of control of the retail market? Does the minister draw that distinction, first of all, and if he does draw that distinction, what guides him in deciding when that guideline has somehow or other been exceeded?

For instance, does he think it’s reasonable that in the case of milk there should be a discount on the processor by the chain store of somewhere between 19 per cent and 21 per cent and possibly considerably higher than that in the price of milk? Does that strike the minister as truly related to the benefits of doing business in volume?

Hon. W. Newman: As I have said, there are many factors in the chain store -- whether the cooling devices are put in, whether they are put in the store each day, how they are handled and what the date and the practice are. For example, the plastic milk cartons might be much more costly to produce than the plastic pouches. Therefore, under those circumstances --

Mr. S. Smith: It’s the same product we are talking about.

Hon. W. Newman: I know we are talking about the same product, but the fact that they could package it a lot cheaper may mean they can give a much better discount because they can do it in the pouches rather than the plastic containers.

Mr. S. Smith: It’s the same package and the minister knows it. Does he draw the distinction or not?

Hon. W. Newman: I outlined it all to the Leader of the Opposition. Quite obviously, he doesn’t know what it’s all about.

Mr. S. Smith: We look forward to finding out whether the minister draws the distinction or not. So far he has avoided that question several times.

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

Mr. S. Smith: I will ask the Minister of Colleges and Universities a question. Is there any thought in his ministry at the moment in terms of possibly changing the wolf bounty method of financing universities and colleges which at present exists, where basically, how many students an institution can capture, presumably still in the live state at least at the moment, determines its budget for the year? Is there any possibility of changing that so that we don’t get into the kinds of practices which have been referred to recently by Mr.

Kent, the U of T director of admissions, where people from universities and colleges are competing by phoning people to try to get them into their university for purposes of government grants?

An hon. member: They used to do that just with football players.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think it would be timely to offer the leader of the Liberal Party an opportunity to come over and go into the method of financing in detail. Obviously, he doesn’t understand it. I am appalled at the question.

Mr. Kerrio: The big problem is that you are not giving us all the information.

Mr. Swart: He’s ready to come over permanently any time.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: May I illustrate the point this way? Last year in August the numbers of dollars allocated to the system for the next year were totally unrelated to the numbers of students that would be in the system this year. There is no wolf bounty. I think that is a very unfortunate choice of words on the member’s part. There is indeed some competition between one university and the other but not for the whole system. I think the interuniversity competition is not all that serious. It has some advantages.

If the member wants to understand the full system of funding, we will be glad to set some time aside for him. There is in place right now a funding mechanism that gives four years buffering to the system. That’s true, and it’s very valuable, but it certainly is not on the head count as the member suggested.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary: Given the fact that, slip year or no slip year financing, we still are dealing with a basic income unit method of financing, can the minister comment on the comments made by Mr. Kent, who says in his opinion a number of universities have admission and liaison approaches inconsistent with the spirit of the guidelines? He says the most visible violation is mass telephone campaigns, in which one or two universities are getting involved, phoning hundreds of applicants before the June 16 date the universities have agreed on for issuing acceptances and so on.

Is this a healthy atmosphere? Does the minister regard this as a healthy sort of free enterprise attitude? Shouldn’t the universities have some method of financing that isn’t so totally dependent upon the number of people they can attract into their places?

Mr. Breithaupt: Some of them get an ear from each.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: The university system is not dependent upon the number they attract. It’s entirely dependent upon the allocation of dollars by the government of this province to the system as a whole. In fairness, the leader of the Liberal Party has put two issues together which do not mix too well, if he does it that way. The BIU method is one of distribution and not funding. There is a very vast difference between a distribution mechanism and a funding mechanism.

Mr. Cooke: Based on what the minister has just said, does he remember his news conference on March 16, 1978, when he tried to justify the cutbacks in the university by saying that for the last 12 years the BIUs have kept up with the rate of inflation? How does the minister justify that statement at his March 16 news conference with what he said just now, that the BIUs are a method of distribution and not a method of determining needs of universities?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Very simply, one is a historical review of the facts as they were presented to this province throughout the years. There once was a time when the BIU method indeed was an open-ended program for financing; it has not been for some considerable period of time, and it certainly isn’t in effect today.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Accepting the fine semantic point made by the minister that the total amount of funds going to the university system may not in his mind be related to the total number of students in the whole system, nonetheless does he not see that for the individual university the amount of money that a particular university will get from the funds that are generally available is in fact dependent upon the number of students they can attract and in that sense bears a distinct resemblance to the bounty system?

Mr. Breithaupt: You’re saying the system follows instead of leads.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: One university may be able to take a larger portion of the budget than another; that’s true.

Mr. S. Smith: Precisely. We are not talking about the total budget.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: But the budget will not increase if they all become aggressive. That is the big difference.

Mr. Breithaupt: But the market share differs.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: In other words, the number of dollars is assigned well in advance of the numbers reported to the ministry. It is not an open-ended system; if there is competition between the University of Toronto, for example, and the University of Western Ontario, so be it.

Mr. S. Smith: It’s a wolf bounty with a limit in the total.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: It is not a wolf bounty. I would hope that the member opposite would expect the universities to want to have as many students as they possibly can. We give the number of dollars that are possible within our priorities; and it is my hope that the universities, given that large number of dollars, would attempt to educate as many of our young students as possible. Why not? Can the member opposite think of a better way of spending our tax dollars than in educating our young people?

Mr. S. Smith: But they don’t create new applicants; they just --

Mr. Bounsall: Supplementary: Would the minister not agree that there are some advantages to be gained in some instances by competition among universities for students, and that this just illustrates good private enterprise practices, which the leader of the Liberal Party seems always to have espoused?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Depending on the issue.

Mr. Van Horne: You’re worse than Mike Pelyk; you don’t know which colour sweater they are wearing.

Mr. Bounsall: Furthermore, it has been demonstrably proven, where universities have admitted adult students with not necessarily the most correct backgrounds for entrance, that those adult students have done a remarkably good academic job at our universities by the time their courses have ended.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Yes.

Mr. S. Smith: Don’t you talk to each other in Windsor?

Mr. Sweeney: Given the description the minister gave to my leader’s previous question, how do universities like Brook and Trent, small arts colleges, possibly compete for moneys from the total fund with, say, the University of Toronto, in view of the recruitment procedures being followed by them?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: For the past number of years, the Ontario Council on University Affairs has recognized, and therefore recommended, that an emerging grant be given to the universities in question. Trent, especially, last year had a 14 per cent larger grant than the competitive universities that the member named; for instance, the University of Toronto. This year it’s a 12 per cent increase.

Council has said it thinks that before long those supplementary grants should be phased out. However, at this time there still are supplementary grants. I am I sure council is taking a very careful look at the whole process of supplementary grants to our university system.

Going back to the question raised by the member’s leader, it simply results in this equation: The more students, the smaller the BIU value per student, equals the same total at the end.

INJURED WORKERS

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question of the Minister of Labour arising out of the absolutely deplorable incident which took place at 1:30 this afternoon in the offices of the Minister of Labour, in which a number of injured workmen were first pushed and were then apparently hit with billy clubs by Metropolitan Toronto police who were seeking to move them out of the building. There were people who, in fact, were bloodied and arrested in that particular incident, an epileptic was hit --

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Cassidy: I would like the minister to say whether that intervention by the Metropolitan Toronto police, with all of the tragic consequences, was, in fact, requested or ordered by the Minister of Labour?

Hon. B. Stephenson: No. The incident did not take place in the offices of the Ministry of Labour. It took place in the lobby of the building at 400 University Avenue in which the ministry is situated but which is not owned by the Ministry of Labour.

Mr. Martel: Move out then.

Hon. B. Stephenson: The owners of the building request this kind of policing at any time there is a demonstration within that building, because they have other tenants in the building. The details which have been given by the leader of the New Democratic Party are almost as inaccurate at the statements he made in the Sunday Star yesterday, to my knowledge.

I am aware that there was an invasion of the lobby of the building. The demonstration had taken place outside, at which time --

Mr. Lewis: An invasion? They were allowed in.

Mr. Wildman: Did they use amphibious craft?

Hon. B. Stephenson: This morning, both the former leader of the New Democratic Party and I spoke to the group outside the building, in a very large area which is outside the entrance to the building. After my departure, apparently the demonstrators went into the lobby and they were attempting, I gather, to move farther into the building. The police were in a line and they were rushed by the demonstrators.

Mr. Martel: On their crutches?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I have no idea of the details of the accidents which occurred, but they were not, in fact those that the --

Mr. Lewis: Excuse me, the police were rushed by the injured workmen?

Hon. B. Stephenson: The original details which have been given to me were not, in fact, those provided by the Leader of the Opposition, who yesterday made some statements in the Sunday Star of which he should be totally ashamed --

Mr. S. Smith: Correct the record. The leader of the third party, please.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- because he has indeed attacked every member of the Tory party in Ontario with those irresponsible and entirely untrue statements.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, she can’t say that.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He was never one to rest upon his laurels.

Mr. S. Smith: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, could the minister kindly correct the record? She inadvertently said Leader of the Opposition when she clearly meant the leader of the third party.

An hon. member: We’re all sorry too, I’ll tell you.

Hon. B. Stephenson: My humble apologies. It was the leader of the third party.

Mr. Martel: On a point of privilege, the minister indicated that the leader of the New Democratic Party’s comments were untrue. She is not in a position to make that statement in this Legislature. I would ask that you ask her to withdraw those statements.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, how do you describe what was said?

Mr. Martel: She must withdraw the statement. Those are the rules of this House.

Mr. Lewis: On the point of privilege, obviously if a member of the House accuses another member of the House of uttering statements which are untrue that has to be withdrawn. I wanted to ask, having missed it in the noise, was the minister referring to what --

Mr. Rotenberg: You are on a point of privilege, not on a question.

Mr. Lewis: -- the leader of the New Democratic Party said today or something which was reported in a weekend newspaper? What was she talking about?

Hon. B. Stephenson: The details which the leader of the New Democratic Party provided regarding the incident in the lobby of the building do not, in fact, coincide with the information which I have been given thus far.

Mr. Deans: That doesn’t make them wrong.

Mr. Turner: It doesn’t make them right, either.

Hon. B. Stephenson: They are, I said, about as accurate -- I think I used the word inaccurate, or did I say untrue? Then I will say inaccurate. I withdraw the word untrue and use the word inaccurate -- as the accusations which the leader of the third party made in yesterday’s Sunday Star. It was in quotation marks and it accused the Tory party of attacking the workers of this province. That is entirely untrue.

Mr. Lewis: He should be admonished for putting it so generously. Talk about restraint.

Mr. Cassidy: It was a very clear attack on injured people.

[2:30]

Mr. Bounsall: Supplementary: As the group of injured workmen were present in the lobby for an entire two-day period some short time ago, and no violence resulted at all, would the Minister of Labour please explain why this occurred today and will she have, through the Solicitor General, a full investigation as to why this should have occurred today when a period of similar occupation lasted for two days without incident?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, there was not a full-time occupation of the lobby for two full days a short time ago.

Mr. McClellan: Got to watch them. They might hit you with their crutches.

Hon. B. Stephenson: There was intermittent attendance within the lobby of the building during the winter months.

Mr. Warner: You’re attacking injured workers.

Hon. B. Stephenson: No one has to my knowledge attacked injured workers in this province, and to my knowledge the police did not attack the workers either.

Mr. Swart: Why was the ambulance there?

Mr. Martel: What do you call that?

Mr. Warner: Why don’t you clean up the board, and this problem wouldn’t happen.

Mr. Martel: Workers on crutches invaded the building!

Mr. di Santo: Supplementary: Doesn’t the minister think that her refusal to accept the demands of the injured workers for an increase of their benefits for the last three years -- due to the confusing policies of the Workmen’s Compensation Board over the application of the supplement and of the consequent suffering -- is an outright provocation; and doesn’t she think it is time that she changed her policies and finally brought in the legislation necessary to correct that situation for which she and her government are responsible?

Mr. Warner: It’s a mean and vicious board, and you know it.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, at about 12 today when I was speaking to the injured workers, I informed them it was my sincere hope we would have the amendments to the benefits ready before this House recessed.

Mr. Cassidy: Sincere hope.

Mr. Warner: But you do nothing.

An hon. member: You said that a year ago.

Mr. Lupusella: You should be ashamed of yourself.

Mr. Bounsall: Supplementary to the answer previous to the one she has just made; is the minister not aware that half of the police at the first sign of pushing pulled out their billy clubs and in point of fact attacked the injured workmen? One epileptic had to receive medical attention. One workman was knocked unconscious. He was bleeding and was handcuffed and taken away in that condition. Is the minister not aware -- when she says there was no attack -- that it in fact occurred and that there are others, the details of which I am not fully conversant with?

Mr. Warner: It comes right back to your board.

Mr. Swart: It’s all right with you.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I am not aware that there was an attack upon the injured workers by the police.

Mr. Bounsall: Get informed!

Mr. Warner: Why don’t you find out?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I am aware that there was scuffling when the injured workers attempted to force their way through the police lines. I do not know the specific details.

Mr. M. Davidson: Injured workers attacking the police? How foolish can you be?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I am informed that one of the workers did indeed fall and no one knows how he injured his head, at this point in time, but we have asked for a full report of it.

Mr. Martel: He rammed his head at the wall.

Hon. B. Stephenson: When that report is available I’ll be very happy to provide it to the House.

Mr. Warner: The board is the source of the problem and you know it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre with his second question.

Mr. Lewis: Remember how often we begged you to give those injured --

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. Rotenberg: Why don’t you just obey the law and tell your workers to obey the law?

Mr. Warner: Clean up the board!

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cassidy: The words quoted in the paper --

Mr. Speaker: Order. We’ve had the original question and four supplementaries. The Minister of Labour has promised a full investigation with a report to this House. To spend any more time, I think, would be counterproductive.

Does the member for Ottawa Centre have a second question?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, I was beginning my second question. I was just saying that the words quoted in the paper were --

Mr. Speaker: Is that a related matter?

Mr. Cassidy: It’s a second question related to the WCB.

Mr. Speaker: I fail to hear a question.

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION

Mr. Cassidy: All right. Can the minister say whether the assurance today that she gave to the injured workmen is in fact nothing but a sincere hope, as she has just said, or will we in fact see the legislation come forward and will it take effect in the month of June? Or is she going to bring in further delays in bringing justice to injured workmen?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker with reasonable co-operation from the third party -- and sometimes that’s too much to hope for -- we will have those amendments by the end of June.

Mr. Martel: Like Bill 70.

Mr. Warner: We’ve waited for you for a long time. Don’t be so condescending.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: In view of the fact that it is now almost three years since the last adjustment in workmen’s compensation benefits, will the minister guarantee that the promised legislation will compensate fully for the increase in average wages and salaries since that time over the three-year period -- that is, that it will be a minimum of a 27 per cent increase?

Hon. B. Stephenson: To adduce the total and complete and accurate figures at this point would be completely irresponsible. I shall not do that.

Mr. Mackenzie: How many years do you need?

Mr. T. P. Reid: By way of supplementary, the minister mentioned in relation to this on the radio this morning that she was looking at the system in New Zealand in regard to workmen’s compensation and other such items. Does she have a report that she could table with the Legislature as to the efficacy of that system in compensating people who find themselves in these unfortunate situations before we even discuss these mailers?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I am sure a preliminary report could be developed, but all the final decisions regarding that program have not been made by the government of New Zealand as yet. There is still some question about the first week of compensation, for example, which has not been decided as yet. So it is very difficult to give a final report on the effectiveness of this kind of program as an alternative to the workmen’s compensation program. But certainly it is one of the programs which is being studied, not only by the Ministry of Labour but also by the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

Mr. McClellan: Could I ask the minister to give us an unequivocal assurance -- yes or no -- that the legislation raising the benefits will be introduced before the House rises in June?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I have already answered that question.

Mr. Warner: Yes or no.

Mr. McClellan: Yes or no. She hasn’t said yes or no.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I have answered the question.

Mr. Warner: Answer the question.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I have answered the question.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order: The supplementaries are becoming repetitious.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask a supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: If you have something original to ask.

Mr. Lewis: I am going to try.

Can the minister --

Mr. Kerrio: That is two supplementaries over there.

Mr. Lewis: I merely responded to the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Niagara Falls have a supplementary?

Mr. Kerrio: Yes, I do.

Mr. Speaker: I hadn’t noticed him standing.

Mr. Kerrio: In view of the fact that the minister is considering an adjustment of the injured workmen’s payments, is she also considering looking into the area of responsibility, where payment should come from?

Mr. Bounsall: It is only one per cent of the payroll. Is the workman supposed to pay for his own injuries?

Mr. Kerrio: Is she relating it to those areas where there are benefits to injured workmen that should come from the consolidated revenue fund rather than come from small business, which can ill afford to pay if it is not their fault?

Mr. Bounsall: We know where you get your campaign funds.

Hon. B. Stephenson: The task force which examined the Workmen’s Compensation Board and its function in 1973 did examine that specific subject. I think it opted for the format of the social contract which was first developed, as members know, in 1915 in this province. We are continuing to examine the alternatives, the additives which might be supplementary to workmen’s compensation.

But I can tell the House that the actuarial study of the Workmen’s Compensation Board has taken some of those factors into consideration and has provided some debate on the subject within the document. It will be available to the members of this House as soon as the final five chapters are delivered to me, which I think should be by the end of this week.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if the legislative amendments are introduced in the month of June, as the minister says she intends -- or even if they were introduced later -- can she give to this House an absolute undertaking that within those amendments there will be an adjustment upwards to reflect the cost of living?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I can give an absolute commitment that there will be an adjustment upwards. Whether it will be on the basis of a COLA or some other mechanism, I certainly can’t say at this point.

Mr. Swart: That’s the base; we want to know the amount.

CHAIN STORE DISCOUNTS

Mr. Yakabuski: I have a question of the Premier.

Mr. Cassidy: It is nice to know that the member for Renfrew South is here.

Mr. Mackenzie: Are you going to take a sabbatical?

Mr. Yakabuski: Mr. Speaker, in view of the number of questions that have been asked in recent weeks of the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman), in connection with the discounting and volume rebates in the food industry --

An hon. member: Get out the hatchet.

Mr. Yakabuski: -- doesn’t the Premier really think this matter is only one small part of business practices that have been going on for years in this province and this nation --

Mr. Makarchuk: Great private enterprise system, Paul.

Mr. Yakabuski: -- and that this Legislature should also be looking at discounts and volume rebates in the hard goods industry, in automobile distributorships and in many other areas of business carried on in this province and country?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the very distinguished member for Renfrew South raises a somewhat broader issue. I must confess to him that, unlike him, I never had a great deal of experience in the sort of business that involves itself in discounts. In the profession that I used to practice there was a tariff and there was no reduction as it related to volume, so I am told. Has that changed, Jim?

Mr. Breithaupt: Not that I am aware.

Mr. Worton: They always get paid.

Mr. Nixon: Lawyers never discount.

Mr. Germa: Free enterprise.

Mr. Bradley: He should discount his salary.

Hon. Mr. Davis: However, Mr. Speaker, I would say to the member for Renfrew South that perhaps before making any general statement or observation, I think the committee itself should deal with this more restricted area for the time being and see what, in fact, the committee finds in its deliberation.

The hon. member has certainly touched upon it in a broader sense and I am delighted that he brought it to my attention. I thank him.

Mr. Yakabuski: Supplementary: Is the Premier aware that firms like Canadian Tire, Eaton’s, Simpsons, Woolco and firms such as that are able to buy much better than the small businessman, the independent?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I must once again confess to the honourable member that I am not personally unaware, and I am not surprised either, that somebody buying several thousand units of whatever it might be perhaps gets them at a somewhat better price than somebody buying half a dozen.

Mr. Worton: Not at the LCBO.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have to confess to the honourable member that when it comes to purchasing services or goods from the stores, by and large those purchases are made by somebody other than myself; namely my wife, and unfortunately on several occasions my children. I will consult with them this evening to see whether they have found this reflected in their purchasing.

Mr. Bradley: Did you get a discount on your condominium?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Like you, I couldn’t afford two.

TEACHERS’ SALARIES

Mr. Haggerty: To the Minister of Education: Has the minister come to any conclusion in the last month since he was asked about Ontario’s role in solving salary disagreements and the AIB levy of $100,000 against the Niagara South Board of Education and the teachers?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, we were not involved in the salary dispute. I think the matter that was put to me by my friend the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) a short while ago, and also by the member for Erie a few days ago, concerned the penalty of $100,000 imposed on the Niagara south board by the administrator of the anti-inflation program. I think on checking we are all agreed that it was legal for that fine to be imposed and that fine had to be transmitted to the government in Ottawa.

There is a provision in there that perhaps half of that, $50,000, could revert to this province. We are checking on that, of course, and if that money comes back to this province it would be a government decision and the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) would have to take the lead in making some recommendations concerning what the disposition of that money would be.

Mr. Kerrio: That’s better income than from radar traps.

Mr. Haggerty: Supplementary: Would the minister reveal the formula agreement that exists for Ontario in reclaiming AIB levies on the provincial public sector as provided for in

section 9 of the January 19, 1976, referendum of agreement between the governments of Ontario and Canada? Would he also relate this payment formula to the $100,000 levied by the AIB against the Niagara teachers and tell us how much of this $100,000 will be returned to the Niagara South Board of Education? Perhaps he should ask his colleague the Treasurer for that information.

[2:45]

Hon. Mr. Wells: Perhaps my friend would let us take that question under advisement and perhaps the Treasurer would like to respond to it at some future time, because it really involves the agreement that we had under the AIB program, which, as I said, may provide for a formula for some of that money to come back to the province of Ontario --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- and if so, perhaps we would then consider what should be done with that money.

Mr. Swart: Certainly I’ll ask the lawyer on the Welland-Thorold board, I’ll tell you that.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I just draw to my friend’s attention, though, that in my investigation of this matter, the matter of the penalty, as I understand it, was appealed to the federal cabinet. The federal cabinet upheld it and the federal government has seen fit to take that money and not return any of it to the Niagara South Board of Education.

Mr. Swart: Further supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of that fact that it is more than three weeks since I raised this issue with the minister, and the money has or will come from the ratepayers of the Niagara South Board of Education, would he not consider it reasonable that the total $50,000, if the province gets it back, and we assume the province will get it back, should be returned to that board of education --

Interjections.

Mr. Swart: -- rather than be kept here to increase the funds of the Treasurer?

Mr. Kerrio: That’s exactly what we want.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I could ask why was the fine ever imposed in the first place.

Mr. Warner: Give the money back; give the money back and then ask the Treasurer to resign.

Hon. Mr. Wells: But the fact of the matter is that our involvement in this is such that at some point in time that money may come back. I think the Treasurer can at the appropriate time indicate what the government of Ontario would do with that money. As far as I know we haven’t received any money back under the agreement at the present time.

FLECK MANUFACTURING COMPANY

Mr. Mackenzie: A question of the Minister of Labour: In view of the serious deterioration of the possibility of collective bargaining in good faith at Fleck, due to the confrontation with the Ontario Provincial Police, which is perceived by the workers to be on behalf of the employers, I’ve got a two part question to ask of the minister.

First, has the minister at any time raised with the Solicitor General (Mr. Ken) the possibility of removing or substantially reducing the OPP involvement on the picket line in order to defuse the situation, remove the threat of violence and lead to more fruitful bargaining? Second, in view of the statements of Mr. Paul Weiler, chairman of the labour board in British Columbia, who dearly refuted the statements of the minister last week concerning the usefulness of first agreements, is the minister now prepared to reconsider her comments and look at the imposition of a first agreement to bring an end to this unfortunate situation?

Hon. B. Stephenson: The answer to the first question, Mr. Speaker, is yes; a proposal was made and it was rejected by all parties. The answer to the second question is no, I am not prepared to do that at the moment. The newspaper report of my comment, that indeed we were monitoring what was happening there, was obviously transmitted in somewhat garbled form to Mr. Weiler. His information is not exactly what had been in my hand at that time.

Mr. Lewis: Everybody garbles your words.

Hon. B. Stephenson: We shall be looking at the results of the second set of negotiations in those instances in which automatic or first agreements were established by government.

Mr. McClellan: Why are you so often misinterpreted?

Mr. Lewis: Even Wilf List garbles your words; and that takes some doing from Wilf.

Mr. Mackenzie: Supplementary: Is the minister not aware that larger numbers of police on the line invariably lead to confrontations?

Can the minister tell us why reducing that force to try and bring about some sanity in the situation would have been rejected by all parties? And is the minister aware of the comments of Mr. Weiler that an imposed first agreement and compulsory union check off, or the Rand formula in effect, is now law in BC; and has, according to Mr. Weiler, resulted in a substantial reduction of the confrontations in that province?

Mr. Lewis: Right; enormous reduction.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes, I am aware of Mr. Weiler’s statements. As I said they are in conflict with the reports that were given to me about this situation in British Columbia. I am aware that indeed that is the law in that province at this time. As I said before, we are monitoring this situation to see whether indeed it has any appropriate place in the province of Ontario or not.

Mr. Warner: Everybody is out of step but you.

Mr. McClellan: You are a disaster.

Hon. B. Stephenson: As far as the first question is concerned, I have no idea why they rejected it. You might ask the UAW, and the Liberal Party might indeed ask the managers of that plant why they rejected the idea; but the idea was definitely put to them with the assistance of one of the member’s colleagues, as a matter of fact quite a while ago.

Mr. Germa: Have you been talking to the owner?

BURLINGTON ZONING DISPUTE

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier regarding a zoning dispute over a fast food or hamburger restaurant in Burlington. Given that the city of Burlington is opposed to its development, that the people in the area are opposed to its development, and given that there may have been certain anomalies with respect to the information that was presented at the OMB hearing, has the cabinet been asked by the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), or by anyone else for that matter, to reconsider this matter? And will the cabinet give reconsideration to it?

Hon. Ms. Davis: The member who serves that area so well whispered in a voice I could hear that there is a petition before the legislation committee. If there is, I cannot comment any further.

Mr. Peterson: Saved again.

WELFARE RECIPIENTS

Mr. McClellan: A question for the Minister of Community and Social Services: As you know, Mr. Speaker, 40 per cent of Ontario’s social assistance caseload is composed of people who are dependent because of disability or major health problems. I want to ask the minister if he will tell us, in terms of cases, how many recipients of family benefits, GAINS-D, and general welfare assistance are injured workers who are in receipt of permanent partial disability pensions from the Workmen’s Compensation Board?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I would not have that information at my fingertips at the moment, in terms of specific cases. I shall try to get that information for the honourable member.

Mr. McClellan: Supplementary: Given that every dollar in social assistance benefits paid to injured workers in receipt of WCB pensions represents a direct subsidy to employers, a subsidy against what would be their cost of paying for a decent pension through the Workmen’s Compensation Board’s employer assessment, may I ask the minister to tell us what is the actual dollar cost in 1977-78 of social assistance benefits paid to injured workers who also received permanent partial disability pensions from the Workmen’s Compensation Board?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I would be quite happy to get that information for the honourable member, if it is available in that form. I’m not at all certain that we would have that specific information on recipients --

Mr. McClellan: The minister agrees, of course, that it is a subsidy.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- that we could extrapolate from our data bank that readily. If it is available, I shall get it for the member.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Agriculture and Food has the answer to a question asked previously.

Mr. Kerrio: It’s just about time. Dispense.

GREENHOUSE HEATING

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, on May 26 the member for York Centre (Mr. Stong) asked a question concerning energy costs in greenhouses. I believe the essence of his question had to do with the rise in price per cubic foot of natural gas as the volume of gas used decreased. I understand that his concern is that farmers practising conservation measures may receive higher natural gas bills than they did when they were using more gas.

My ministry has conducted several studies on energy conservation in greenhouses and has additional research going on at the moment. We have looked at such matters as greenhouse design, solar energy, insulation materials, heating of soil as well as the air, and other management practices relating to energy conservation. Our main concern in these projects is the conservation of energy and the use of solar energy.

Energy costs have not been a central theme in my ministry. The matter of energy pricing more properly belongs to the Minister of Energy (Mr. Baetz) and I understand that he will respond to the price aspect of this question either late this week or early next week. I will send a copy of the work we are doing in energy conservation over to the member for York Centre.

EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES

Mr. O’Neil: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Is the minister aware of the practice of some private employment agencies which receive an hourly rate from an employer, but then pass on only a portion of the rate to the employee, perhaps as little as the minimum wage?

Mr. Deans: Is there anyone who isn’t?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, I am not aware of that practice. I’m not sure that I have legislative authority to look into it, but if the honourable member will provide me with the details of it, we will report back to the House.

Mr. O’Neil: Could I also ask the minister if he does not feel that such agencies should be required to disclose the rate they are receiving from the employer to the employee? Would he consider setting a limit on the commission taken by such agencies after he has had a chance to review this information?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As I said, I wouldn’t want to comment further until I have all the details of what is happening in the particular transactions. If the member will send them over, I’ll be pleased to comment in detail after I’ve seen them.

PRAXIS INVESTIGATION

Mr. Renwick: I have a question of the Attorney General: I refer to the statement of the Attorney General on Tuesday last about the theft of documents from the office of Praxis Corporation and particularly to that portion referring to the retention of the documents by the RCMP without notifying the Metropolitan Toronto Police. The final report of April 18, with which the Attorney General agreed, concluded that “there are no grounds to lay charges against any person, arising out of the subsequent receipt and possession of Praxis documents by the RCMP.”

My question is, if the justification as stated by the RCMP for not notifying the Metropolitan Toronto Police was that the stolen documents were not retained for criminal purposes, for what purposes were the stolen documents retained by the RCMP and what use has been made of them since they received them?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: There were a number of factors. Some were related to issues of natural security and some were related to what the RCMP felt involved the safety of at least one RCMP informant. In my view, the RCMP acted in a bona fide manner in pursuing the course it did.

With the value of hindsight, I am not prepared to state at this point in time that its judgement was the best possible judgement in the circumstances, but given all of the very complex circumstances surrounding this whole unhappy affair, there could be no doubt that the Metropolitan Toronto Police and the local crown attorney came to the right conclusion when they decided that criminal charges should not be laid in those particular circumstances.

I don’t know if the question related to where the documents are at the present time. I can’t answer that aspect of the question. I may have known at one point in time, but I can’t honestly recall.

Mr. Renwick: By way of a supplementary question: Understanding as I do that the crown attorney for the judicial district of York exercised his discretion not to proceed on this matter, did the Attorney General himself or members of his department see the documents? Does he understand whether or not there were questions related to national security involved? Can he give this House any further or more explicit statement as to what he means when he said that, as a matter of hindsight, the judgement of the RCMP left much to be desired?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No, that’s not what I said at all. I haven’t seen these documents. I didn’t say that the judgement of the RCMP left a lot to be desired. I simply stated, given the power of hindsight, that the judgement exercised by the RCMP in retaining these documents for a lengthy period of time may not have been the best possible judgement in the circumstances. But I’m not prepared to go into the circumstances in order to add anything to what I’ve already stated. Having said that, to suggest that what I said meant that the judgement of the RCMP left a great deal to be desired is really placing my views in a somewhat different context.

Mrs. Campbell: Supplementary: The Attorney General has stated, as I understood him, that he doesn’t wish to go into the facts in this matter. Is that the reason why no one from his ministry apparently at any time interviewed Mr. John Hladun, who stated that he had a great deal of information in this matter but has never been interviewed by any person about it?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The name of the gentleman to whom the member for St. George has just referred means nothing to me. First of all, I should make it clear that members of the staff of the Ministry of the Attorney General are not carrying out the investigation. Our role is to advise the appropriate police authorities when it appears necessary.

[13:00]

I can’t recall the circumstances of the investigation except to say that we know there was an investigation carried out by the Metropolitan Toronto Police, firstly.

Secondly, we know that there was an investigation carried out by the Ontario Police Commission at my request immediately upon the receipt of a letter from the Solicitor General for Canada stating that he had certain information to pass on to me related to certain individuals who may or may not have some information. To my knowledge, this matter was pursued completely and the individuals who were named in the letter from the federal Solicitor General all were interviewed. My recollection does not indicate that the person whose name the member for St. George just mentioned was one of them. I have to say that name means absolutely nothing to me at this point in time.

Mrs. Campbell: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The information came through an interview with CBC. The name was not known to me any more than to the minister. But is the minister not becoming somewhat concerned with the numbers of opinions and legal statements made in this House referring to a variety of matters in which there appears to be little or no investigation of the facts upon which these opinions are based?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think that’s quite an unfair statement, if I might categorize it as such, Mr. Speaker. So far as any statements that have been made in relation to the Praxis matter are concerned, they are based on a very complete, very thorough and very painstaking investigation. As to documenting the factual situation and investigations in relation to any other legal opinions, I would be happy to do that if I’m asked specifically about any other matters.

Mr. Speaker: The Solicitor General has the answer to a question asked previously.

FLECK MANUFACTURING COMPANY

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday, the member for Beaches-Woodbine asked a number of questions concerning the involvement of the Ontario Provincial Police in the strike at Fleck Manufacturing Company Limited.

In answering those questions I might say that on Friday, May 19, approximately 250 people joined a picket line of 41 workers at Huron Park. There were 19 OPP officers at the plant site that day, although an additional 57 were held in reserve but not deployed.

The cost of the policing operation on May 19 was approximately $8,730. I have now received a cumulative total up to and including May 22; it is $523,529.

Mr. Lewis: That’s unbelievable.

Ms. Bryden: Half a million.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The main entrances to the park were not closed off on May 19. I understand that, initially, some picketers were blocking the entrance, but when the OPP staff superintendent asked them to move they did so.

The member for Cambridge (Mr. M. Davidson) asked why it was necessary to provide accommodation in places like the Holiday Inn for police officers assigned to the strike. The member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) also asked why the possibility of using Camp Ipperwash had not been investigated.

The OPP looked at many kinds of accommodation in the area. Camp Ipperwash and Wolseley Barracks have both been utilized. However, when the military requires Camp Ipperwash, the OPP must find other accommodation. The Holiday Inn was able to offer the force a reduced group rate; so it is being used in conjunction with other facilities.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Volume discount.

Ms. Bryden: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I wonder if I could ask the minister how he can justify the expenditure of half a million dollars on these reserve police who appear to have been kept outside the plant expecting some sort of activity that would require 57 police in reserve. When one thinks of the cost of maintaining those 57 police for approximately 250 women who were appearing on a picket line that day, how can he justify this kind of reserve requirement?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I might say that for the period from about the end of April up to May 17, there was only one police officer on one particular day who was at the picket line. During all that period, the police were only held in reserve. They were not deployed at the picket line. Those were days when the picket line itself was not reinforced by outside picketers. There was no problem whatsoever on the picket line in those days although the picket line was formed by the women strikers.

It was only after May 17 when the honourable member may recall there were a number of people that came up from the Chrysler plant at Windsor. That day there was one male officer at the picket line. I don’t know if the honourable member recalls that, but there were a number of instances that day of employees who were attacked, and there was substantial property damage. As a result of that, the police reinforced their personnel at or near the park.

When the honourable member attended on May 19, the OPP increased the personnel at the site to 19 and the number of reserves at other locations.

Mr. Warner: You scared them, Marion.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: As the staff sergeant indicated in committee last Friday, it depends on the intelligence of the force as to the number of outside picketers who may be reinforcing the picket line that they deploy extra people.

Mr. Lewis: They were clearly wrong again.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: All I can say is that in order to control the crowd and keep the park open, they have to keep a number of police officers in reserve.

Mr. M. Davidson: Given that the minister has now informed us that the cost to May 22 of administering that strike by the OPP is I believe $523,000, can he now tell us whether or not that includes the basic salaries of the constables who are on duty? When I raised this in a supplementary previously, the minister indicated that it might have, but that he wasn’t certain.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: No. The honourable member should realize that the police officers are all salaried personnel and are all on regular salaries regardless of where they are serving in the province. Based on the number of personnel who have been there or on reserve from time to time from March 6, the total salary figure is $519,938.

Mr. M. Davidson: In addition to the $500,000?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes.

Mr. Lewis: So it’s over $1 million altogether at Fleck, eh? And you can’t solve it, can you?

Mr. Deans: Do you know how much the settlement would cost?

Mr. Cassidy: In view of the fact that the Police Act specifically gives the Solicitor General the power to enter into agreements with a company so that the company will pay the cost of policing where it’s provided by the OPP, is it the government’s intention now to make Fleck sign such an agreement so that the company should pay this million-dollar cost of protecting the company rather than having the taxpayers of Ontario pay it?

Mr. Rotenberg: Why not the union?

Mr. Hodgson: What about the union?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I have no objection to attempting to do that.

An hon. member: Then do it. Go ahead and do it.

CHAIN STORE DISCOUNTS

Mr. McGuigan: I rise on a point of privilege. I should like to correct an impression that was inadvertently given by me to the committee on natural resources last Thursday evening. I realize the proper place is in the committee but I ask your indulgence to do it here because I want to take the first opportunity to do so.

I believe I indicated in the committee that three bills from the M. Loeb company to McGuigan Orchards for apples were paid on a six per cent discount basis and that as a result of representations by my son these discounts were removed. I should have said three statements. I did not make it clear that only those invoices received since my son protested have been corrected so as to provide the minimum price set by the apple commission.

There are three statements covering January, February and March and three deliveries in April which were paid on a six per cent discount basis. This has not yet been corrected. Invoices since April 21 have been paid at the net proper rate. A letter is being sent today to the M. Loeb company, with a copy to the Ontario Apple Marketing Commission, asking that these payments be corrected.

TIME FOR QUESTIONS

Mr. Bounsall: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Should not the time taken for the point of privilege by the previous speaker have been deducted from the time for the question period and, therefore, would not a new question be in order?

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions had actually expired before he rose. The time was up at 3:10.

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION

Mr. Grande: On a point of privilege: On April 11 I asked a question of the Minister of Labour regarding the unwritten policy of the Workmen’s Compensation Board to require from injured pensioned workers three signatures from employers per day and 15 per week as proof that they are looking for light jobs in order to receive the pension supplement. I asked the minister to clarify that policy. The minister answered on that day: “Mr. Speaker, I’ll be very pleased to inquire from the chairman of the Workmen’s Compensation Board precisely what it was he did mean by that statement and present it to the House.”

All the minister had to do was to place a phone call to Michael Starr to get the information and report. A month and a half has elapsed and the minister has not answered that question.

Mr. McClellan: She’s still studying it.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, I am seeking your assistance to try to activate the Minister of Labour.

Hon. B. Stephenson: The response to that question was submitted to the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) with a request that he distribute it to all members of the caucus.

REPORT

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

Mr. M. N. Davison: I wish to take the fourth report of the select committee on the Ombudsman and ask, pursuant to provisional standing order 6, that the report be placed on the order paper for consideration by this House.

This report will provide members of the legislative assembly with a survey of the ombudsman institution in the five foreign jurisdictions visited by the committee. It explains how things are done there and more important, why things are done. It is the committee’s intention that this report should serve as a starting point for the consideration and creation of rules,

definitions and

interpretations to be arrived at in an open and free consultative process.

The report contains two recommendations. First, while the committee has concluded that the concept of an ombudsman is applicable to local government in Ontario, the committee recommends that the function of ombudsman to local government should not be performed by an ombudsman who has jurisdiction over provincial or central government organizations. Second, the committee again recommends that its order of reference be amended to provide that it receive and consider the estimates of the Ombudsman and report thereon to the Legislature with such recommendations as the committee deems appropriate.

Copies of the report are available in the members’ mail boxes and are now available to the press.

SIMCOE DAY ACT

Mr. G. E. Smith moved first reading of Bill 99,

An Act respecting Simcoe Day.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. G. E. Smith: The purpose of the bill is to change the name of the public holiday celebrated in many municipalities on the first Monday in August from Civic Holiday to Simcoe Day in honour of John Graves Simcoe who was appointed the first Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada on September 12, 1791 and who convened the first Legislative Assembly and established the capital of the province at York, now Toronto.

[3:15]

CONSUMER PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. B. Newman moved first reading of Bill 100,

An Act to amend the Consumer Protection Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. B. Newman: This bill requires that every product offered for sale by a retailer that is marked with the universal product code must also be clearly marked with its individual purchase price. This would ensure the rights of the consumer to the privilege of comparison shopping by requiring individual item pricing.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Before the orders of the day I wish to table the answers to questions 56, 57, 58 and 60 standing on the notice paper.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS (CONTINUED)

Mr. Chairman: Resuming, then, consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Affairs.

On vote 901, ministry administration program; item 3, regional and community relations.

Mr. T. P. Reid: We’re still on --

Mr. Chairman: Item 3.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Item 3. Perhaps the minister could give us a rundown of what the regional and community relations officers’ functions are -- how many there are in the northern region, what their functions are, and how many backup people he has in Toronto working with these people.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The number of northern affairs officers across northern Ontario now totals 29. Each one of those has a secretary with him, which would be a total of 58. In addition, here, there is the support staff that numbers --

Mr. T. P. Reid: While we’re waiting for that information, can you explain, do you have somebody now within your ministry called a community relations officer, as distinct from a northern affairs officer? No?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No.

Mr. T. P. Reid: What is Don Cameron in Kenora, Bill Calvert in --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, right. That’s right.

Mr. T. P. Reid: You have heard of them?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes. There has been some confusion in that while we’re calling our offices community service centres, the 29 northern affairs offices are basically community service centres. Some people are confusing those people with community service officers. They are still northern affairs officers per se. We’re not changing that name, just the name to signify the office so we can identify them within the organization.

Mr. T. P. Reid: And your community relations officers, Mr. Cameron, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Fleming --

Mr. Wildman: Roland St.-Onge.

Mr. T. P. Reid: -- and that gentleman my friend Mr. Wildman has mentioned, what is their function? They are called specifically by the title community relations officers, right?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Right.

Mr. T. P. Reid: What do they do as separate and distinct from the northern affairs officers?

While I’m on my feet -- because, as the minister knows, I always like to ask at least one question about money -- what are the salaries of both the northern affairs officers and the community relations officers?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The salary of a northern affairs officer, classification 1, ranges from $17,333 to $20,282, for classification 2 from $18,000 to $22,000, and for classification 3 from $21,000 to $26,000.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Do you have any making $26,000?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I’m not sure. I’ll just check on that.

Mr. T. P. Reid: While we’re waiting, what is the community relations officers’ salary level?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I must just read for the honourable member the responsibilities of those officers: “The community relations program of the ministry has basically two principal functions: to make residents of northern Ontario aware of the programs, services and facilities available to them from the government and to assist residents of northern Ontario to make the most beneficial use of the programs, services and facilities of government which they and their community require.” They are at the regional bases and they move around within the region and work with the municipalities. Of course, they support the 29 other northern affairs officers in the area.

I’m told that there are two people receiving $26,000 right now, Mr. Myles, who is in the regional office at Kenora, and Mr. Scully, who is at the regional office at Sault Ste. Marie.

Mr. T. P. Reid: They’re doing better than members.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, they’re worth more in some cases.

Mr. Germa: I’m a little confused by the figures, Mr. Chairman. If I look at the printed book, the 1977-78 estimate for this program is $347,500. Then, when I look at the briefing book that the minister circulated, the 1977-78 estimate is $1,570,000. I’m trying to find out how fast this community relations branch is growing. Could the minister give me the true figures? Why is there the discrepancy between the printed book -- $347,000 and the briefing book -- $1,570,000?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, there was a typographical error there, and I believe the revised estimates page has been resubmitted to the members. I could certainly get the honourable member a copy of the corrected transposition of those figures.

The figures did not change the total. The total for the 1978-79 estimates is still $6,470,000, and the total for 1977-78 is still $4,049,000. There was just a problem. The corrected page is on its way to the member now.

Mr. Germa: If I take this to be correct, the estimate last year was $1,570,500; this year it’s $2,560,000. Those are the comparative figures; we don’t have an actual for 1977-78, do we?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, we don’t have an actual yet.

Mr. Germa: So we have a projection of almost a 100 per cent increase in that particular line, regional and community relations. I wonder if the minister would tell us where this great increase came in. What caused this great increase from $1.5 million to $2.5 million?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: As the member for Rainy River will attest, the services of the northern affairs branch and the services of northern affairs officers have been broadly extended in this coming year. We have opened up a total of nine new offices. Of course, this is reflected in the budget increase.

New offices opened in northern Ontario included those at Hearst, Chapleau, Rainy River, Ignace, Iroquois Falls and, of course, the regional offices at Kenora, Sault Ste. Marie, Sudbury and Thunder Bay. So there has been a broad expansion of the northern affairs offices in northern Ontario and, as I said a moment ago, it is directly reflected in the increase we are asking for.

Mr. Germa: When you put a regional office in the same community as the northern affairs office, what is the different complement in structure?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The northern affairs office itself, working through the community service centre, has the northern affairs officer and a secretary. They deal directly with the public. They are basically a storefront operation.

The regional office deals on a much broader basis with the policy setting of the programs, dealing with the various municipalities, and in liaison with the other ministries, and working, of course, with the other regional offices, the main office and the regional office here in Toronto.

It is not large in number. The regional office in Kenora will have somewhere around 12 to 13 people when it is finally staffed. The office in Thunder Ray will have anywhere from eight to 12. Sault Ste. Marie, about the same size as Kenora, and Sudbury about the same size as Thunder Bay.

As the honourable member will know, I am sure, in our reduced complement figure that was recently announced, we indicated -- and had told the mayor of Cochrane -- that our regional office, scheduled to open up there this year, would be deferred until some later date. We had planned a regional office in the town of Cochrane but because of cutbacks in complement and in salaries we have had to postpone that particular office opening for, I suspect, some time.

Mr. Germa: Even despite that announcement, there must have been an increase in staff in that line.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes.

Mr. Germa: Where did we get these people from? Were they transferred from another ministry?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Some were. Advertisements were placed all across northern Ontario. I am sure that the member saw some of the advertisements in our northern papers. We held competitions right across the north. In fact, our engagement program, or hiring program, is not completed as yet.

I have to say to the member -- and I am sure he agrees with me -- that we are being extremely selective and careful in getting for these positions people who are, I suppose, a little higher in calibre than you would normally require for this type of work, because we feel that they should be northern oriented, have a broad knowledge of government services and, of course, have that type of personality to deal with the public in a very helpful way.

It is a very sensitive position. It is one that commands the total ability of those individuals we have in those particular fields; and, certainly, this is reflected in the number of inquiries that we are receiving in our northern affairs offices and in the expansion of those particular programs that they relate to, such as the ICAF fund now.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I want to rise, really, on a point of order. I don’t want to cut my friend off but I am a little concerned in the briefing or the estimate book that there is an error of $1.2 million. Presumably, it is for money from last year.

I was wondering if there were any other mistakes that we should perhaps be aware of? Why would you, yourself, not have brought it to our attention, rather than having it raised by the member for Sudbury? I would think that it is your responsibility to do so. Was there anything else?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize for that. The staff did bring it to my attention and in fact I intended to do that the first thing today, but I just arrived on that late 12 o’clock plane from Thunder Bay. I certainly apologize for that. But as I pointed out the actual totals for this year have not changed and all the error was in the printing of last year’s figures.

[3:30]

Mr. T. P. Reid: That’s the only mistake?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That’s the only mistake that has been brought to my attention.

Mr. Germa: I have a speech of the minister of January 21, 1978. He was in Kirkland Lake at the chamber of commerce. He said --

Mr. T. P. Reid: You should get a medal for reading those.

Mr. Germa: They’re very entertaining.

“At the same time, from one of the many possible programs for so-called soft services we are selecting those which relate to employment and improvement of living conditions, training programs to help people handle new and better jobs, other programs that will add meaningful dimensions to people’s living standards.”

I see no reference in the briefing book to any training programs, and I am not aware of any such programs to help people in northern Ontario handle new or better jobs. Could you fill us in on that one?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The idea behind that statement is to assist those organizations -- and I refer back again to my many references to the Manitoulin Economic Development Association. Here we assisted financially to set up that development association to train the local people in the field of business management, advertising and marketing. It is that kind of a thrust we want to embark on.

I have said many times across northern Ontario that our priority, as the member has correctly quoted me on, would be employment-oriented in that field. I think we can see ourselves leaning very heavily to the development of an industrial park in a specific community that would provide the opportunity for industry to establish, and thereby create more jobs within that community. It is this kind of direction that we would like to see ourselves moving into. I would say to the honourable member that the DREE program is also leaning very heavily in that direction.

Mr. Bolan: I have a question of the minister. I might say it is good to see the minister this afternoon. I would have preferred to have seen him on Friday in North Bay. However, I was not privy to that meeting. It has to do with that that I have this question for you, Mr. Minister.

I was speaking to one of your information officers on Friday afternoon -- I believe his name was Fleming. The portent of my question is to find out from you just what instructions your ministry gives when it has to do with inviting certain people in certain areas to certain meetings which are sponsored by the ministry, which are paid for, of course, by public funds, and whether or not your ministry has some type of procedure you follow whenever you have one of these conferences or meetings. What is the procedure involved in that, particularly in reference to the meeting you held last Friday in North Bay?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: There are a number of meetings held across northern Ontario by our staff, and certainly by myself. I refer to a typical one we held in Timmins where the general area was invited to submit briefs to my colleague, the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Brunelle). At that time it was generally open to everybody to join us and I believe everybody did. It was broad and general in nature. We wanted the broad, general input before making some very important decisions that would affect the tourist industry in the northeastern Ontario corridor for some time to come. We received it, we are very grateful and action has been taken on those suggestions already.

The meeting to which the member refers was the first meeting of the Municipal Advisory Committee in North Bay. It was basically a formation meeting where the Ministry of Northern Affairs was taking over the responsibility of that particular group from the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs.

We had a very successful meeting in the northwest part of the province with the executive from MAC at the Quetico training centre where we spent a good day with those members to look at an industrial strategy report, basically behind closed doors, I suppose you might say, because it was confined to a number of my cabinet colleagues and the executive themselves. I think it’s fair to say that the responsibility rests with the government to bring forth recommendations, at least at that particular level.

That meeting we had in North Bay was not advertised in the sense that it would be an open public meeting where we would get all kinds of input. I think we felt that because of the hiatus, I suppose you might say, that occurred in the transfer from one ministry to another, we wanted to sit down with the executive themselves, and I believe that there was a notice that a news conference would be held to outline to the press just what we had achieved and in what direction we were going.

Outside of that, we didn’t finalize any policies or programs but we indicated to them that we had reached accord with regard to the setting up of a secretariat, that we would give certain assistance to them, but any recommendations or any research, of course, would have to be theirs. It’s something that I have said continually, that we do want that northern input and we don’t want to be accused, as a government or as a ministry, of supplying input, say, through the back door.

It was brought up to me that sometimes the statistics that are brought forward are brought forward by various government civil servants and they have no way of checking or questioning them. I think they strongly felt -- and rightly so; I agreed -- that much of that research should be done through their own forces. We also agreed that there would be a budget to assist them in setting up their secretariat and that the Ministry of Northern Affairs policy staff, either in Sudbury or in Sault Ste. Marie, would be there to help them and to give them all the advice they could.

The thrust of our whole meeting was to assure them that the government felt there was a need for the Municipal Advisory Committee. We strongly felt that they should be autonomous. Maybe one area that I didn’t touch on and maybe I should have was the amount of involvement the municipalities would have. There’s an area there that maybe we are going to have to reconsider, in that there may be some financial contribution they would like to make, to make themselves truly autonomous and not totally dependent on the provincial government for funding.

That is not an area that will raise any concern from my point of view, but I think it’s an area that they might want to discuss with their own municipal leaders.

Mr. Bolan: I just have one question arising from that. First of all, I might say I agree with the decision which has come from that meeting, that you should be creating a secretariat for that particular area. I think that’s a sound move on the part of the ministry. I also agree with your statement that there are some times when these meetings should basically be held behind closed doors. After all, some of the things which you are discussing are recommendations which will be forthcoming from the government, and as you yourself have said, you’re throwing statistics around and sometimes they can’t be properly interpreted and you’re looking for more input.

Bearing that in mind, I might say I would have loved to have been an observer only at that meeting. I did try to go to the meeting, incidentally. I phoned your Mr. Fleming on Friday morning. He said he would get back to me and he did, around 2 o’clock; although I was not speaking to him, he was speaking to my secretary.

He advised my secretary at that time that I could not attend, but that, however, these instructions had come from Toronto. He was very quick to point that out.

I said to myself “Well, that may be so. Perhaps there is some reason why the member should not attend.” Then, lo and behold, who does attend?

There was Stan Darling, the Progressive Conservative member from the federal riding south of mine. There was Marie Marchand, the Progressive Conservative candidate for the next federal election, and Ed Diebel, the leader of the Heritage Party.

Mr. Wildman: A Tory front.

Mr. Bolan: Do you know what I really thought after that? I thought that at least the members from northeastern Ontario should have been invited to that meeting because, after all it had to do with the municipal advisory committee dealing with northeastern Ontario. I was not invited. I am not aware that the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot) was invited or the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) or even the cabinet minister from northeastern Ontario, the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Brunelle).

I am suggesting to you that these people should have been invited. I do accept the basic premise which you have laid down that sometimes these things have to be held behind closed doors, but then you bring in a candidate of a political party and the member from the riding to the south. Maybe you have an explanation for that. I would hope that you do.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: If I might explain, the invitation went out only to the members of the executive council. As I said earlier, the desire was for the cabinet to meet as a group with the executive of MAC to take that next very important step. No invitations were sent to any other members on either side of the House. It is fair to say that one other northeastern Ontario member, a member of this particular party, indicated his desire to attend. I indicated to him that it was a cabinet session and that maybe at some other meeting somewhere down the road, after we got the information pulled together, he could attend.

I would have to also say to the member for North Bay --

Mr. Bolan: Nipissing.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Nipissing, sorry -- I was not aware that the PC candidate was to be there. I was a little surprised that she was there at all. She is a very charming lady, I might admit. After I had met her when the meeting was all over, I --

Mr. Bolan: Is she a member of the cabinet?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, she is not a member of the cabinet and she was not invited. She was there. I am sure there wasn’t anybody checking the identification of those who were there because there were 40 to 50 people there.

Mr. Bolan: What if I had shown up? Would you have let me in?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I am sure you would have been allowed to go in.

Mr. Bolan: Fine. I will do that Wednesday when you are up there with the chamber of commerce.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It wasn’t that secret a meeting, let’s put it that way. They were there and they didn’t participate in any of the discussions -- I can assure the honourable member of that -- although the member from the North Bay council, Mr. Ed Diebel, did. In fact, he made one of the presentations that MAC had pulled together. He did a very good job on it, I might say.

The MAC executive would also have a say as to who should be there and who not. We asked for the meeting from a ministry point of view. The invitations, as I said earlier, went just to members of the cabinet and not to anybody else.

Mr. Bolan: I have a followup question. Does that mean that I am invited as a member for the Nipissing riding at the chamber of commerce meeting your ministry is hosting in North Bay on Wednesday?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I have no objection at all if the member for Nipissing is there. It is an informal luncheon. I am going to North Bay. In fact, I find myself spending more time in the northeastern region than I do in my own riding, the great riding of Kenora. I am looking forward to meeting with the North Bay Chamber of Commerce in a very informal way, after which I will meet with the directors of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission in the afternoon.

It is a full day. If you are there, join us.

Mr. Germa: He’ll have to buy a ticket.

Mr. Bolan: I will be there. Thank you.

Item 3 agreed to.

On item 4, project development and implementation:

Mr. Germa: Mr. Chairman, I know you don’t have time to read the minister’s speeches. I would like to read you another paragraph as I am sure you enjoyed that first one.

Mr. Chairman: Thank you very much.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I am honoured.

[3:45]

Mr. Germa: This is still in Kirkland Lake at the chamber of commerce on January 21, 1978. On page seven the minister says:

“For instance, when we consider a proposal to build a hydro generating station we have to be convinced that it will yield permanent results worth far more than capital costs involved. We’re happy, of course, if the construction will require X number of tradesmen and labourers who might otherwise be without work. It’s satisfying, too, to realize that the generating station itself will employ Y number of persons in permanent jobs.

“But all of those jobs are really just bonuses. The big payoff will come from the way a new source of power will attract new industry which, in turn, will encourage commerce and development and the way in which all three will generate jobs. Some people might describe this process as a spinoff but that term does not appeal to me in this case because it implies an end result that is secondary and almost accidental. That is certainly not the right way to describe the long-term benefits towards which we are deliberately working.”

The minister has made brave words that there is no hit or miss, or there is no chance any more in capital expenditures. I would presume the minister would have no trouble in telling me how many studies, or what studies he has done as a result of the Atikokan generator installation, and what the results are to be down the road, say 10 years hence? First of all, tell me what kind of studies you’ve done?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Could I just describe to the member the activities of the project development branch? I think it’s worthwhile to put them on the record because they will maybe clarify some points in the member’s mind both now and in the future. There are a number of points here, if I could just go through them with you.

The first spells out the works in concert with municipalities. This is the activity descriptions function: 1. Work in concert with municipalities and other ministries in planning development strategies to improve northern community conditions and to respond to local needs; 2. Negotiate agreements with community representatives and local government officials on ministry-funded projects; 3. Provide administrative technical support to the program delivery functions at the regional level; 4. Review and monitor projects to improve government program thrusts; 5. Provide project development and co-ordination; 6.

Undertake projects relating to the possible expansion of the economic base of the region; and, 7. Conduct a project into the economic life of northern Ontario to determine the potential for development.

That gives you a very broad description of the function of that particular activity within the ministry.

As to the actual studies that have been completed, there are a number of studies completed by the former section, which was Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs, leading directly to the problems of Atikokan -- the social development problems that would occur if the mines were closed. Those have activated a number of ministries in doing something for Atikokan.

For example, when I was in Natural Resources we embarked on a very ambitious program to have another waferboard plant established at Atikokan, in co-operation, I might say, with the municipalities themselves. Now we have Pluswood established in Atikokan employing about 125 to 140 people, using a species of the forest -- the poplar and the birch -- that was, up until this time, not being utilized by the major pulp and paper companies who own large timber limits in that area. So it was that kind of a thrust that prompted us to go in that direction.

Also, I might say, the Ministry of Northern Affairs has taken on the lead ministry role for the town of Atikokan, as we have for Pickle Lake, so we will be cranking up our presence with that community in trying to come up with some solution in co-operation with the municipalities. I don’t see us providing all the answers to all their problems. I think we’ll work very closely in co-operation with the council and with the municipality itself because I think the thrust and that desire, that drive, to be really successful has to germinate with the community.

Sure, we are anxious to give as much support as we can, to give the benefit of the expertise within the government, but we want to do it in concert with the municipality itself.

Mr. Germa: I think I still didn’t get an answer whether a study was done to determine what the benefits are going to be to that area as a result of the Atikokan generating station.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I am not aware of any direct study that has been completed at this time. We are in the transition stage, as the honourable member knows from getting many of these reports and studies over from Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs. It may well be there’s something going on that I am not aware of.

Mr. Germa: It gives me reason then to criticize the minister’s statements when he goes around saying that nothing happens in northern Ontario until we determine what the benefits are going to be, and there’s not going to be a thing known as a spinoff or an accidental benefit.

I seem to get from this that despite the expenditure of $2,740,000 we are still walking around in the dark up there as to whether there are going to be some benefits as a result of the Atikokan generating station. If there are spinoff benefits we don’t know what they are going to be. Otherwise, I am sure you would tell me that within 10 years this is going to create x, y and z in the communities, it’s going to increase the population.

These brave words you give as you go around talking to the chambers of commerce -- I think you have to try to contain yourself and not give the people too much hope. When the hopes are not realized, then the disillusionment is so severe that there could be a reaction to the whole Ministry of Northern Affairs.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Can the minister indicate under salaries and wages how many people are involved? Line staff, officers; what they are doing and where are they employed; are they in the north or in Toronto, and exactly what do they do in regard to this vote?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: What area, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. T. P. Reid: Under vote 4 you have $1,355,000 for salaries and wages. Who does that apply to? How many employees? How many of them are directly involved in program development and implementation? Where are they accommodated? Are they in Thunder Bay? Are they in Sault Ste. Marie? Are they in Sudbury or are they in Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I can give you a breakdown, Mr. Chairman. We have 15 people in the northwest region who are under the direct responsibility of William Calvert located at Thunder Bay. We have 14 with the financial program planning branch under the direction of Andy Morpurgo here in Toronto and we have 23 in the northeastern region under the direction of George Ormerod at Sudbury. That gives you 15 in the northwest, 14 here in the finance and program planning

section and 23 in the regional and community division section.

Mr. T. P. Reid: What do these people do? We are trying to sort all this out. We have been through the regional and community relations people and your northern affairs office. What do these people do specifically then? What’s their job descriptions? Do you have the range of salaries for these people?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, we have. The main people -- Mr. Calvert, Mr. Morpurgo and Mr. George Ormerod -- are in the $30,000 to $37,000 bracket. Then there are secretaries and clerk-stenos, clerk-typists, community planners. They range from $21,000 to $26,000 and economists from $28,000 to $35,000. Economist 5, $25,000 to $31,000; economist 4, 24,000 to $30,000; economist 3, $20,000 to $24,000; economist 2, $16,000 to $19,000; and secretaries from $9,000 to $11,000.

They are involved in a broad range of activities on a regional basis, such as the planning for the 2001 conference; a lot of that work was done by the local staff. The contact with the Manitoulin Economic Development Association; working very closely with the Ministry of Transportation and Communications with regard to setting priorities for new highway construction programs; the airstrip development program with MTC -- all that work is done by the staff out in the field. There is a lot of work to be done there; in fact, we are only just cranking up and beginning to scratch the surface of the amount of work that we have to do.

Mr. T. P. Reid: These salaries we are paying boggle my mind. Possibly that’s because I have been here for 11 years and have been working for a lot less. But with all due respect to some of the people in the ministry, does it not bother the minister that an economist is getting $35,000? It doesn’t. I would have been better off to have finished my MA, come back here and have little responsibility as a civil servant -- I don’t mean the senior people. Really, it’s out of line. Does the minister not feel that the salaries he is paying are out of line?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, I don’t.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I didn’t think so.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The honourable member must realize these are well within the civil service qualifications and criteria. These are well laid out by the civil service. If the honourable member has an objection to those high salaries, he should make it know to the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Auld), who deals directly with the Civil Service Commission.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I appreciate that some of those salaries are by way of negotiation, but a lot of what we are talking about here, higher-echelon positions, don’t come under the collective bargaining process.

Let me go back to something the minister said, because it really concerns me. He talked about the airport and the highways programs -- and we will get to those specific votes in a few minutes -- but what did we do before we had the northern affairs officers out there in the field with their “expertise” deciding where airports and roads went? What function are they fulfilling with respect to the project ministries, such as MTC? What are they doing?

Are they getting together with good old Harry in MTC, who also is getting $35,000, and Harry says to Joe, “Joe, I think the road should go here,” and Joe says, “Well, we think maybe it should go there.” “All right, we’ll put it in between”? Seventy thousand dollars, and where are we?

What exactly are they doing? Are they running around northern Ontario figuring out new projects? My concern is that I am not sure these people are doing anything more than touching those tax dollars as they are going by and costing the taxpayers more money to arrive at and implement decisions that have already been made within the operating ministry.

I was talking to somebody in MTC in Toronto the other day, and I said, “What about all these road projects?” He said, “Frankly, we used to proceed a fair bit faster, but now we have to co-ordinate with the Minister of Northern Affairs.” It has not only slowed the program down but also with all due respect to our highly paid people, we now have somebody within this ministry who supposedly is making the decisions, as I understand the words of the minister as have been read to us, as to where roads and airports and everything else should go; I wonder, quite frankly, whether or not they have the expertise to do that.

I know the minister will point to Mr. Aiken and others and say, “They were with the ministry; so they have that kind of expertise.” But I tell him, the feedback I get from some of the other ministries is that his ministry is slowing down the process rather than speeding it up, and that we are using more tax dollars in order to arrive at perhaps the same goal as maybe we were approaching.

[4:00]

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I think the honourable member will have to realize that within an organization as large as the Ontario government, when a new ministry is established that looks after the regional needs of an area -- that area north of Parry Sound to the Kenora area -- and taking over the function, the coordinating and priority-setting responsibilities for certain programs that up to this point in time have been the responsibility of another ministry. It takes a little time for some readjustment. I think you have to accept that. Some civil servants just don’t want to let go, they still want to make those decisions.

The responsibility for making those decisions has been transferred to this particular ministry. We’re cranking up and it’s certainly not our intention to create delay. We want to accelerate some of these decision-making processes. It’s something the northerners want, and as I’ve said many times, that is a direct input.

We’ve cried in the north so many times that decisions have been formulated and brought together by people in southern Ontario. You say, “Why have a separate ministry, why couldn’t the other ministries do the same things we’re doing today?” I have to remind you, sir, that we are just going into our second year. The budget of the Ministry of Northern Affairs, if you will look back, has been increased by about 40 per cent since it was established.

The programs we took over were budgeted at $99 million. Last year we got in excess of $120-odd million. This year we’re asking for $139.9 million. There’s been a tremendous acceleration and increase in the amount of our budget. That takes extra people to administer.

Mr. T. P. Reid: That’s right, that’s the problem.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Sure that’s right.

Mr. T. P. Reid: That’s the problem. We wonder if the administrative costs are worth it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You can’t say that our administrative staff is large. When you look at the numbers we have, our total complement will be 170 or less right across the north.

Mr. T. P. Reid: But your salaries are large; there’s nothing wrong with your salaries. John Rhodes is applying for a job right after the next election; so am I.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I stand a chance of getting one.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I make no apologies. I think that we’re off and running and that we’re satisfying the needs of northern Ontario very well.

Mr. Wildman: I have some questions in regard to the description of the function of the ministry under this vote, as described by the minister at the outset. I’d like to relate it to some specific studies and some specific project development plans and co-ordination the ministry is doing in my riding.

First, I’d like to know if the minister could clarify once again the present position of the Hornepayne town centre project. I understand that in the press recently in Thunder Bay Mr. Balmer, who is the head of Hallmark Hotels, made a statement that he expected that the contract would be let in the first or second week of June. I’d like to know if that is correct; are we at that stage yet?

Earlier in the estimates the minister indicated to me that the government had just opened the tenders, that they were being studied, and that the various ministries involved, and CN and Hallmark, were determining what they were going to do about the project. As the minister has indicated, the reeve of the township of Wicksteed -- Hornepayne -- has made some statements recently expressing concern about the high cost of tenders coming in for various projects. Could the minister clarify what stage we’re at in plans for the Hallmark town centre in Hornepayne, and does he expect the project to begin in early June?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: As I indicated during our last session, the question of the town centre development at Hornepayne has kept a number of our staff very much engaged for a considerable period of time.

I think the honourable member is very much aware of the complexities of what I think is a very exciting concept for northern Ontario, where we have the private sector on the one hand working with both the federal government and provincial government in attracting a sizeable amount of capital to develop a major centre that not only will deal with the commercial aspect of the community, but indeed the residential requirements of the Canadian National Railway. The breakdown and the costing has been very complex, to say the least.

As the honourable member is aware, this is the second time we’ve called for tenders for that particular development. The first one came in rather high. There was some readjustment to the concept, the design. It was felt at that time that the calling was inopportune. The way they say it in northern Ontario, the contractors weren’t hungry enough. So they were called again. Much to their surprise, the second tenders came in higher than the first.

We did put a figure on it that would keep our interest in, in that we were prepared to stay with the project provided the figure did not come in over $10 million plus 10 per cent. I understand that that’s been exceeded.

Right at the present time Hallmark are going over their plans again. They’re working very closely with the contractor to see if there is somewhere they can scale down the concept. Also, there have been some changes with regard to the cost of construction as it relates to the gravel supply and also the accommodation that could be provided for the workers when the project is under way. All these things are in the works now.

I’m still confident, quite frankly, that we can work out something that will allow us to call and give the contract this year. Really, I am. Unless there is something I’m not aware of at this point in time, then at this point I would have to say to you that I’m confident we will get something going.

Mr. Wildman: Thank you. I’d like to refer to a couple of other matters. While the minister was in Wawa we had a pleasant dinner with the officials of the township of Michipicoten and other guests, and the reeve of the township raised a couple of concerns that have been major concerns in Wawa for some time. One is in relation to a study that I believe the ministry is involved with, and the other was a matter the reeve wanted the ministry to get involved with. In both cases the minister replied that he was concerned about them, that he was aware of the matters and that the ministry was involved or would get involved.

Specifically, one was the study regarding the improvement of television communications along the northeastern shore of Lake Superior affecting communities like Hawk Junction, Wawa, Dubreuilville, White River and perhaps farther along the shore. I understand the Ministry of Transportation and Communications is involved in a study and that the Ministry of Northern Affairs is somehow involved in that.

Could you explain your exact involvement in that study; and do you anticipate, as has been rumoured, a conclusion of that study by June or early summer? If you do, could you explain how that is going to be co-ordinated with the recent decision of the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission giving Dr. Young, of Chapleau, a licence to provide cable service for Wawa, considering your stated position in these estimates that the ministry is not interested in subsidizing cable systems? Can you respond to that and then I’ll raise the other matter.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I have a little briefing note here. Maybe I could just put it into the record for the benefit of the members. I might say at the outset that my colleague, the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Rhodes), has been pressing and spending a lot of time in these discussions with myself and the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) because of his desire to get a broader coverage of that service into the northeastern part of the province. I’ve just given him a copy of the briefing note that I’m going to put on the record.

I’d just point out to the honourable member that the Ministry of Northern Affairs and MTC made a joint presentation to the CRTC in Sudbury concerning broadcasting services in northern Ontario in November 1977. If you haven’t got a copy of that, I will be glad to get you a copy.

Mr. Wildman: I have a copy.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The submission expressed at that time the government’s concern regarding the deficiencies in the availability of broadcast and cable services in the north in view of the importance of broadcasting in the social and economic life in northern Ontario. They also outlined Ontario’s communication policy objectives for northern Ontario. These included: 1. A basic television service consisting of CBC services, and CTV should be available to as many communities as is technically and economically feasible.

Mr. T. P. Reid: That’s what you said, it isn’t what you have done.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That is what we said and that is the route that we are going.

2. Ultimately this basic service should be available off-air to as many residents as possible. Cable television might be used as an interim delivery method but cannot be viewed as a permanent substitute provision of the basic service in northern Ontario.

In other words, here we are saying we are going to have the same type of service as they do in southern Ontario.

3. The provincial objective for the Ontario Educational Communications Authority broadcasting services has been to expand TV Ontario to those communities listed in the phase three plan, as funds become available. I can get you those names.

4. A cable system should be established to those communities that are presently unserved and that can support them to provide sources of greater choice and diversity of programming.

5. There should be an improved source of cable channels which are reliable and of good quality.

6. There should be available a basic radio service consisting of CBC radio services and at least one alternative AM radio service to as many residents in northern Ontario as is possible.

I think that that is very important and it was brought home to me very clearly that Confederation College at Thunder Bay has some excellent facilities and with additional capital could broaden and, of course, could provide the northern atmosphere and attitude to those programs that are being broadcast in northern Ontario rather than having them manufactured and produced here in southern Ontario.

The commission was requested to act upon Ontario’s objectives and suggestions, in particular the need for co-ordinated regional solutions encompassing both broadcasting and cable, to be discussed at regional hearings.

The submission identified two areas of particular need. The area north and west of Sault Ste. Marie along the north east shore of Lake Superior. The one that the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane) and my colleague, the member for Sault Ste. Marie, is very much involved in. The other area, of course, is that area west of Thunder Bay west of the border, and as far north of the 51st parallel.

Both areas lack CTV service and top quality alternative distance signals for cable subscribers. The submission expressed Ontario’s concern over the high cost of microwave delivery in northern Ontario and suggested that this issue might be pursued in regional hearings.

The Ministry of Northern Affairs is participating with the MTC to ensure that solutions to TV service in the area north of Sault Ste. Marie -- Wawa, White River, Chapleau, Hornepayne, and Dubreuilville -- provide satisfactory TV service, both off-air and cable, to the maximum number of people possible. So we are working very closely with them.

DGB Consultants Limited are currently completing a study that will determine the economic and technical alternatives for the area and their cost implications. The study includes an evaluation of the proposal put forward by Dr. George Young, of Chapleau, to provide a cable system in the Wawa area.

In northwestern Ontario, you might say that the government is aware of three regional proposals to improve TV service in that area. That is the area west of Thunder Bay. I am sure that the honourable member for Rainy River is aware of these. The Norwont and Norvideo of Atikokan and Fort Frances proposal, the Kenora Cablevision of Kenora proposal, and the CKPR-TV and CHFD-TV proposal from Thunder Bay. All proposals, of course, are at the formative stage only.

CRTC when reviewing Kenora Cablevision’s licence stated that the economics of broadcasting in the region may demand unique proposals to effect solutions and that all broadcasting options for the region should be addressed. In particular, a complete and viable plan for the introduction of CTV in the area was considered to be of paramount importance. It is very encouraging to note that the CRTC decision is reflecting Ontario’s policies and priorities for improved TV service throughout northern Ontario.

I think that is very important, because many of the things we suggested in those hearings in Sudbury have attracted the imagination and the interest of the CRTC and it is moving ahead on them.

I might say on this point that David Brough, who is providing many of the smaller communities with a form of entertainment -- Is that the way to put it? --

Mr. Wildman: That is a good way of putting it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- has in essence, you might say, in a formal way received some form of sanction from the CRTC, in that he has not been licensed but he has not been put out of business; it is kind of a no decision. The point I want to make is that here is an entrepreneur who is providing a form of entertainment in some of our communities.

It is relatively costly. I was up in Pickle Lake about a month ago and they informed me that the community had bought the facilities for $3,000. It is being operated out of an individual’s home. In fact, the system is sitting right in her kitchen, where it is easy to operate. She gets two 12-hour tapes a day with a suitable program that is delivered to the 108 residents of Pickle Lake, who each pay $10 a month. They have contracted with Mr. Brough to provide them with these tapes at $1,000 a month.

The reception was very good the day I was there. That is the entertainment channel, and if you want news or a sports event then you turn on CBC. They were quite satisfied with what they were getting, albeit they did think that $10 a month was a little high and sometimes there is a delay in getting the new programs in and there is repetition. Nevertheless, I have to say to you that here is an entrepreneur who is doing something in northern Ontario that maybe some of the higher levels of other organizations or corporations should have been doing earlier.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I was speaking to someone this morning about Mr. Brough’s setup, and the minister made me think of something -- as a matter of fact it was my brother, the federal member, who I understand the minister is supporting in the next federal election.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You said it, not I.

Mr. T. P. Reid: He apparently was in Red Lake recently and appeared on the community channel and said that while he was in the studio, if that is the word, they were showing reruns of I Love Lucy and she looked like she was about 22 years old; so some of the programs leave a little bit to be desired. Perhaps I might share with the House the latest information that I have, that Mr. Brough finally got around to trying to license himself to the CRTC, which apparently turned him down because of the quality, I presume, of the application that he made. I am happy to hear that Red Lake has bought the system. Mr. Brough owns the one in Ignace, I believe, and I think the rest are all community owned.

I want to go into this to some extent. Does this come under this vote, project development and implementation? Is that part of this particular vote?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Who in your ministry is responsible then for this aspect, because I spend a lot of time talking to people in MTC. Who can I bother in your ministry? I don’t notice anybody waving their hands.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I will just get the name of the individual.

Mr. T. P. Reid: While that is coming forward, I would like to go back a few years, if I may. As I recall we gave a gentleman in Thunder Bay -- I believe with CKPR -- an NODC loan for I think $650,000.

Mr. Wildman: Conrad Lavigne got one in Timmins.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The object of which at that time -- I think it was 1971 or 1972 or maybe earlier -- was to provide an alternative TV network to CBC, not only for Thunder Bay, but it was supposed to be expanded to cover Ignace, Atikokan to the west and also east to Wawa and along the north shore to Schreiber and so on.

I can’t recall if that was a forgivable loan, but I do know that nothing ever developed out of that $650,000 of taxpayers’ money outside of the city of Thunder Bay. I appreciate these are very costly projects because I’ve been involved in trying to get an alternative television station for Rainy River, Emo, Ignace and so on.

I wonder if the minister can recall any of the details? He can’t. Has he got the name of the person who will never be at the end of the phone when I want him?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The person you should contact in our ministry who is dealing with television and radio approvals in northern Ontario is Margaret Rodrigues.

Mr. Wildman: Any relation?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Absolutely not, you may rest assured.

Mr. T. P. Reid: She remains in Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, she is in Toronto.

If I may just follow up on the honourable member’s comments with regard to CKPR. I believe that was a performance loan. In other words, if the owner performed according to the agreement, then the portion in question