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

February 27, 1978

31st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L005 - Mon 27 Feb 1978 / Lun 27 fév 1978

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

MINORITY LANGUAGE RIGHTS

OECA AWARDS

SCIENCE AWARD

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH RECORDS

BARRIE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL

HYDRO CONTRACTS

ONAKAWANA LIGNITE DEPOSITS

PUSLINCH TOWNSHIP

BOARDING HOUSE FIRE

ONTARIO NORTHLAND RAIL SERVICE

TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES

PCB HAZARD

MINORITY LANGUAGE RIGHTS

FINANCIAL PROTECTION FOR FARMERS

COMMUNITY LAW CLINICS

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

MINORITY LANGUAGE RIGHTS

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the statement which I issued on the occasion of the premiers’ conference in Montreal on minority language rights last week, as well as the final communique of that conference. This conference was held to follow up on the discussion on minority language rights which took place at the annual conference of provincial premiers at St. Andrews-by-the-Sea in New Brunswick last August.

Last week we reviewed a report on the state of minority language education in the 10 provinces of Canada which the premiers had commissioned from the Council of Ministers of Education. I am also tabling a copy of that report. The report shows clearly the progress that has taken place in recent years in the provision of schooling facilities in official language minorities, particularly in Ontario and New Brunswick.

Nevertheless, I am convinced that the meeting of last week has resulted in all of the premiers being much more aware of what has been happening in other provinces and will provide the spark for additional measures to be taken this coming year. Members of this House should take the results of this meeting as yet a further indication that the government of Ontario will continue to work towards the improvement of minority language facilities in our own province.

OECA AWARDS

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to inform the hon. members that the Ontario Educational Communications Authority, an agency of my ministry, has been officially notified by the Ohio State awards committee that they are the recipients of two prestigious Ohio State awards.

Mr. Cunningham: You mean like transportation man of the year?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Really outstanding awards. Very prestigious.

The first award is for a TV Ontario commissioned program entitled “Symphony” concerning the Thunder Bay Symphony Orchestra. It just shows you how objective they are -- in Ohio.

The second award is for the OECA-CBC school radio program entitled “The Naturalist Notebook” with Arthur Black. This program won in the category of formal instruction for children and youth.

As the hon. members will be aware, the Ohio State awards have long been synonymous with educational broadcasting excellence and these awards will formally be presented to the OECA tonight at the banquet in Washington. If any of the hon. members would like to view the award-winning “Symphony” program, my ministry has made it available to the legislative library on quarter-inch video tape and I invite everyone to see first-hand the level of excellence which Ontario has now reached in the educational broadcasting field.

Mr. S. Smith: We can see it on the Buffalo channel.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Only if they pay.

An hon. member: That’s not policy, is it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, that’s not policy.

Mr. Foulds: Arthur Black is a resident of Thunder Bay.

SCIENCE AWARD

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I’m anxious that the hon. members would also share in the excitement which is ours in view of some news that has just come to my attention. The director-general of the Ontario Science Centre in Toronto, J. Tuzo Wilson, the Canadian geophysicist who has spent a lifetime piecing together the earth’s jigsaw puzzle of shifting continents, has won Columbia University’s 1978 Vetlesen prize, the premier award in the earth sciences, and that’s just been announced. I’m sure we share in that particular thought as well.

VISITOR

Mr. S. Smith: Before I address a question, Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention to a prominent visitor in your gallery? He is Mr. Freeman White, a member of the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador, if he might rise.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH RECORDS

Mr. S. Smith: I had hoped to address a question to the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), but I’ll address it to the Premier. It has to do with this matter of confidential information from the health system which apparently has found its way into the hands of the RCMP.

I was wondering if the Premier has by now familiarized himself with whatever information is available and whether he is in a position to explain to the House how it is that such information apparently did get to the RCMP, despite the statement made in the House by the Attorney General that all information was simply bare-bones biographical information, including only address, date of birth and employer. That statement was given to the House on November 25. Would the Premier care to comment on where the matter stands?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have not had an opportunity to discuss it with the Attorney General. I believe he will be here later on. If he is not, I will make sure that he knows of the question so that tomorrow afternoon he or I can give the Leader of the Opposition an answer

BARRIE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL

Mr. S. Smith: A question again to the Premier in the absence of the Treasurer: Can the Premier tell us what the position of the government is on the matter of the Barrie annexation proposals? I ask this question in view of the recent Ontario divisional court ruling that nullified the OMB decision based on the fact that the minister -- the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) in this instance -- had given an opinion of so-called government policy and, according to the court, had in this way exerted an influence beyond what the court thought to be the case.

Can the Premier tell us two things: first, what will the policy be about the Treasurer’s interventions in the future, and secondly and most importantly, exactly what population target, for that area, represents government policy at this time?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, without disagreeing, because I was not involved in the discussions before the divisional court, I think it is fair to state that ministers of the Crown do have a responsibility to make policy statements and I think that the decision of the divisional court was an important decision. We -- or maybe the municipality -- are presently contemplating the question of the decision of the court itself -- not as it relates to Barrie because that is one part of it only -- but whether this is something that should be clarified with an appeal to a higher court as it relates to a matter of principle; not, as I say, as it relates directly to Barrie.

With respect to the second part of the question, I shall ask the Treasurer if we have a specific population figure. I think it is obvious that in the planning stages certain figures are suggested. I think it is also obvious that with the apparent slowdown in growth generally, throughout this province and throughout the country, that some population figures suggested four or five years ago may not be as accurate as they were at that time.

So while, I guess, we could debate in the House whether that figure should be 100,000 or 75,000, I think it is still obvious that the government policy is that Barrie is to be, or should be, a growth area. The specific size is important, I think, but not as relevant as the acceptance of the fact that Barrie, in our view, should be a growth community.

Mr. S.

Smith: By way of supplementary, accepting what the Premier has said without any difference of opinion at all and not limiting in any way any possible appeal that the government or others may wish to launch, would the Premier agree with me that since one of the major matters in question at these hearings was the degree to which the Simcoe-Georgian task force report has been accepted, so as to constitute in whole or in part government policy, and as that is a very important consideration, would the Premier -- if he does agree with me on that -- be willing at some point to issue a statement or have the Treasurer issue a statement as to what parts of that task force report are still presently government policy and what amendments or changes from the report the government views as policy, so that we can eventually have a resolution of this matter without people constantly arguing back and forth about the different population figures and so on?

[2:15]

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be possible to have some redefinition of the report. I think the Leader of the Opposition is somewhat optimistic that this will necessarily diminish in total any debates that may take place within those local communities. I just recall for his own memory the TCR where government policy was enunciated I think in 1969 or 1970 -- the exact date escapes me -- where in some communities, some that I know very well, there is still some debate as to the population densities and the rate of growth. This applies as well to Mississauga and a number of other communities.

I think that one must keep in mind that these planning documents are published in advance, which I think is important. Potential growth that takes place and the possibility of these figures being altered, either upwards or downwards as the case may be, is something the government must always be open to consider.

If the Leader of the Opposition is asking for some updating of the way we see the Georgian Bay area -- the figures that might be involved -- I think that that would be possible for the government to do. I will discuss it with the Treasurer.

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary to the Premier: Since it is the responsibility of the OMB as a quasi-judicial body not to make policy but rather to interpret and apply policy, while it may be appropriate for the provincial Treasurer to intervene to clarify what the stated policy happened to be, even though it is mistaken, is it not the responsibility of the OMB to reconcile one government with another -- namely, whether or not you should gobble up 20,000 acres of prime agricultural land when there is another stated policy that agricultural land should be protected?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think -- and I am not familiar with each acre that was under consideration -- that a good part of the agricultural area in that very important part of the province was in fact protected and would be protected under the policies of the government. I think really it would be difficult for the Ontario Municipal Board in terms of its responsibilities to make some of the judgements that the member is suggesting.

I am not saying that that should not be part of their considerations, but I think that really their function is primarily -- and I say primarily; I don’t say the other is not part of it -- but primarily, is to determine the extent of the acquisition in this particular case.

I don’t think there is anything to preclude the Ontario Municipal Board from saying, as they have done on a number of occasions, rather than this particular 500 acres it should be some other 500 acres, as long as it was meeting the request made by the annexing municipality. I think, Mr. Speaker, that nothing in government policy has ever precluded the Ontario Municipal Board from that type of judgement.

Mr. MacDonald: A brief supplementary if I might, Mr. Speaker: In keeping with the Leader of the Opposition, would the Premier give a commitment that somebody on behalf of the government would give an up-to-date statement of what government policy is in connection with that proposed annexation and provide an opportunity in the House to debate it, so that we can all be aware of it in its full scope, rather than have all these uncertainties?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think that would depend on the course of action taken by the government. If -- and I think it is a possibility and, as I say, not just related to Barrie because I think the divisional court had some general statement about policy as it relates to the functioning of the board -- if that matter is under appeal, I think a debate in this House would be probably premature until such an appeal were determined.

Mr. MacDonald: I was talking about the policy, not the procedure.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If the member would like to debate on whether or not this House feels that Barrie should be “a growth centre,” I think that is something to which the member might wish to address his remarks on the Throne Speech or on some other appropriate occasion. To get into a detailed debate on Barrie or the whole Georgian Bay area prior to the determination, if there is to be one, by the courts -- and I expect the government may decide to go that route, as a matter of fact -- I think would be premature.

Certainly if the hon. member has some views on that particular annexation, the Throne Speech debate might be an excellent opportunity for the rest of the House to learn what his views are, although I think I know already.

HYDRO CONTRACTS

Mr. Cassidy: A question to the Premier: In view of the fact that the proposed contract with Denison Mines would extract a windfall profit of a bare minimum of $1.6 billion from the taxpayers and hydro consumers of this province, and in view of the fact that the Premier has now received a letter from the chairman of the select committee on Hydro stating that the majority of the committee felt that they were unable to confirm that approving the contracts is in the best public interest, can the Premier say whether the government intends to heed the view taken by this majority of the select committee and reject the proposed contracts?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, Mr. Speaker, I can’t.

Mr. Cassidy: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can the Premier elaborate on that very terse reply and, in particular, say whether the government is also prepared to heed the advice of such well-known people on its side in the past as George Gathercole, people from Consolidated Edison and the Hydro management generally, that it is in the public interest that the uranium assets of Denison Mines or Denison Mines itself be brought into public ownership in order to protect the interests of the people of this province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the one part of that question I can answer is the government has and will continue always to do its best to protect the public interest.

Mr. Laughren: Show us how.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: In view of the fact there was a decided difference between that side of the House and between the other parties in this House as to what the public interest entails, and in view of the fact the cabinet is apparently meeting to discuss this question this afternoon, and in view of the fact there is a deadline of tomorrow on the signing of the contract, is there any extension of the proposed deadline in view and can the Premier give a commitment that the contract will not be signed until the opportunity for an emergency debate on this contract is afforded to this House tomorrow afternoon?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Of course, Mr. Speaker, this could all have been solved if the new leader of the New Democratic Party had been up before noon today and had given notice.

Mr. Cassidy: That was a cheap shot and you know it.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Just as cheap as some of yours.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I recognize that he has a lot of responsibilities and 12 o’clock does come early, so I won’t comment any further. I would only say to the member opposite --

Mr. Conway: You were up watching your wife on television. She said some nice things about you.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I didn’t have a chance to watch it. How was it? Was it all right? She was very nervous about it.

Mr. Conway: She was talking about retirement.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have to tell the hon. member there is no possibility of an extension beyond midnight tomorrow night. Cabinet is meeting today. In case the leader of the New Democratic Party is getting nervous, the cabinet meeting was not called for this particular purpose at all. It happens that we sat last Wednesday afternoon, I had to leave to go to Montreal and, as a result, we didn’t get our full agenda covered. So I don’t expect there will be time, in the limited period this afternoon, to make a final decision on that matter. What the leader proposes to do tomorrow afternoon is totally within his control. As I say, he could have done it this afternoon.

I just want to make it very clear that the whole intent of this government was to have this contract well discussed publicly by members of the select committee, and everything that was available made known to members of the House and members of the public. While I know the leader of the New Democratic Party would like an opportunity to restate once again what some of his members felt, even though they were stated many times in the committee itself, and that he himself would like to have one further opportunity, that’s a decision that he will have to make by noon tomorrow, I guess.

Mr. Cassidy: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the Premier give a clear answer as to whether he is at least prepared, on behalf of his government, to listen to what may be said in an emergency debate tomorrow afternoon from the Legislature as a whole and not just the members of the select committee, before the cabinet goes ahead and gives its authorization to signing or not signing this particular contract? Has he that much respect for this Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’m always prepared to have any constructive advice from all members of this House. If the leader of the New Democratic Party is saying he has some new and enlightened views --

Mr. Warner: The Premier wants to check with Stephen Roman.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- that he would wish to present to us that already have not been expressed, I feel very badly that he hasn’t done so. I would assume he has said just about everything that can be said on this particular issue. In fact, I would say he has said everything that can be said on just about every issue, but if he is saying he has some new views, send them to me right away. Take a few minutes and scratch me some notes. I assume the members of his caucus, very able members, were expressing the views of his party.

One thing I did learn from the select committee report is that while it was totally objective it did appear to break down on somewhat partisan lines, which perhaps should not have surprised me.

Mr. Martel: Not your members, Bill; not yours, though.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, no -- totally objective, totally objective.

Mr. Martel: That’s right. Have you got a shovel?

Mr. Deans: I think the word is “objectionable,” not “objective.”

Hon. Mr. Davis: But I would suggest -- I am quite serious in this -- if the leader of the New Democratic Party has some ideas that were not part of the discussions, or weren’t part of the chairman’s lengthy report to me, if he would get them to me this afternoon, I certainly won’t ignore them.

Mr. Reid: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier: Has there been any negotiation, shall we say, between the government and Mr. Roman as to an extension of time for the actual signing of the contract or is tomorrow it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would say, to use the member’s own words, that tomorrow is it. There has been no extension, no negotiation for an extension.

Some hon. members: What are you going to do?

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, do I understand the Premier to say that, despite the committee’s rejection of a motion to approve the contracts as being in the public interest, the government is intending to go ahead without even giving the opportunity which does still exist for this Legislature as a whole to debate the issue, and the cabinet is simply disregarding this Parliament in its intention to proceed with the contracts?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Nonsense.

Mr. Warner: Roman rules the roost.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, this House sat last Wednesday. It sat Thursday. It sat Friday, The hon. member had until noon today and he neglected to bring any notice to the attention of the Speaker.

Mr. Deans: We were waiting to see what you were going to do.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Why?

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is totally within the hon. member’s responsibility that he has not got this motion this afternoon --

(Applause)

Mr Warner: You sell out the province and they applaud it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I thought I had indicated to the leader of the New Democratic Party that cabinet was not called this afternoon to deal with this issue. I said that. Any suggestion on his part that we were going ahead and signing the contract without an opportunity for a debate is just totally erroneous. It doesn’t surprise me but it’s totally erroneous.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker --

An hon. member: You bombed again, Mike.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: There’s nothing out of order.

Some hon. members: Sit down. Sit down.

Mr. Speaker: There’s nothing out of order. I have listened very patiently to the initial question and the four supplementaries that the member for Ottawa Centre has put to the Premier. You can ask your question in any way that’s in keeping with the provisional orders or the standing orders. The Premier can answer it in any way he chooses within the rules of the House. There is nothing out of order. I will now hear your second question.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, if I may --

Mr. Speaker: What is it?

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you. The point of privilege is simply to draw to the Premier’s attention that the matter was raised on Thursday --

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

Hon. B. Stephenson: Nor a point of rule.

ONAKAWANA LIGNITE DEPOSITS

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources, who is now in the House and who was absent on Friday. Can the minister state who are the principals of Onakawana Development Limited, a company which has recently popped into public view as intending to develop the lignite deposits near James Bay; when it intends to begin its process of extracting the coal from that deposit and what guarantees there are about providing jobs for people in the region, in particular for native peoples, in that proposed project?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, it’s true I wasn’t here on Friday.

Mr. Warner: Most of your colleagues were away too.

Mr. Reid: Ignore the cheap shots, Frank.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I seldom am away but I happened to be looking at lignite operations on Friday; so I have learned more about this Onakawana project.

An hon. member: After you gave them a licence to mine.

Mr. Martel: It sounds like Wanapitei all over again. You might learn something about that.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The principals of Onakawana Development Limited are Manalta Coal Company, and Manalta Coal Company is a Canadian-owned company. I believe it’s wholly owned in turn by a company called Loram. Loram is owned by, I think, the Mannix family, principally in Alberta. They have been involved in the development work. I believe the hon. member has heard the name Manalta throughout the piece. This company was simply formed to be an Ontario company able to carry out that work here.

There are several phases through which the project is going. These phases will be, first, the work that progressed until about February 1 of this year, which basically I think was hydrological studies to tell them whether the soil was of a type that would allow easy extraction of the lignite. These I believe were quite positive. The second was to determine the qualities of the material. These, I understand, are good.

[2:30]

There are still a number of problems to determine whether the economics are good or not and whether in fact the lignite should be burned on site and made into electricity or sent out in some other form. The company is proceeding along those lines at the present time, and has certain dates by which it hopes to achieve each study’s completion. I think everybody is pretty optimistic right now.

We have discussed the question of local employment, I would say, rather than native employment, because I hope there are opportunities not just for native peoples but for people in the general area of Cochrane and Moosonee. These, the company has assured us, will be given every priority in the hiring process. It is not one of the conditions of the lease, but it is one of the understandings of our agreement that there should be a priority given both to native peoples and local people in the hiring process.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister say whether an environmental assessment has been carried out on the Onakawana site, and if not, how does this particular granting of a lease fit in with the government’s commitment to have projects north of 50 degrees reviewed by the Hartt commission?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I issued a statement some months ago on that, you may recall, when I stated that the exploratory licence was being granted. The lease was signed I think sometime in January. I can only say that the company agreed, and we announced, that a full environmental assessment would take place on that project. I understand the company and the Ministry of the Environment are working on the details of that. It appears that the exploration and the environmental assessment can probably proceed at the same time.

Mr. Cunningham: Supplementary: I would like to ask the hon. minister if the agreement that has been signed would in any way preclude the development of the fire clay deposits which are immediate to that site, which if developed would provide another 25 jobs?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The fire clays were of real interest to us in the whole operation. We certainly hope they can be developed and that they in fact will be used for various purposes in that area and create employment. The real issue is, would you have two people extracting in one pit? I think you will find that the lease requires that one operator extract both the overburdens and the coal for the simple practical purpose that it can only be done that way. But the clays would be made available to people who would like to use them.

PUSLINCH TOWNSHIP

Mr. Sweeney: A question to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Mr. Speaker: What action does the minister intend to take on the report submitted to him by Mr. T. W. McEachern with respect to the irregularities in Puslinch township?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I would like to refresh my memory on that, but I don’t think any action on our

part is required. I think the council has dealt with the matter.

Mr. Sweeney: Is the minister aware of the fact that the latest reported irregularity is that a building put up by the Ministry of Government Services, an agricultural building for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, was overcharged by $4,000 with respect to a building permit? What would the minister intend to do about that?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would suspect that this has nothing to do particularly with irregularities by the staff: It would seem to me that question might be directed to the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Henderson) rather than to myself. But the answer to the question is, no, I am not aware of it.

Mr. Sweeney: A further supplementary: Is the minister aware that this particular irregularity was caused by a member of the staff completely contravening a bylaw of the township? That’s part of the whole problem.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I have already explained that I am not aware of the situation.

BOARDING HOUSE FIRE

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary for Social Development. In view of the death of six senior citizens in a boarding house fire in Chelmsford on the weekend, and in view of the fact that the boarding house had little or no fire or smoke or heat detection system, would the minister assure us that such boarding houses that accommodate senior citizens, many of whom are not particularly mobile, will be brought under the Homes for the Aged and Rest Homes Act in this province?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will be discussing that particular incident with the Ministry of Health and hopefully checking into why such a home was allowed to operate without a licence.

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary: Does the minister have any idea at all how many senior citizens are housed in such accommodations across this province, and who is responsible for their safety? Would she stress very strongly to the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) or to the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Norton) that these people need to be protected, and that it requires provincial legislation that could be passed and supervised by the municipality in which the homes are located?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I can certainly assure the member that it will be investigated. We do appreciate the responsibility of ensuring that senior citizens have that kind of protection. As I’m sure the member knows, there are a great many programs for senior citizens in this province and it’s rather difficult to ensure that every private home where senior citizens are housed is protected by this kind of fire protection. But we certainly will be looking into it.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: When the minister is looking at this would she also look into reports, which may or may not be factual, that there were a great number of beds available at a nearby home for senior citizens -- in fact 20 or 30 beds were available -- and that these citizens were living in this particular boarding arrangement for reasons unknown, but possibly related to financial criteria and difficulty in obtaining access to these empty beds? These reports may or may not be accurate, but would she be good enough to look into them and report to the House?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Yes, I will.

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary: Did the minister understand that part of my question when I asked her if she had any idea how many people live in such accommodations in the province?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I thought I made that very clear. No, I don’t have.

ONTARIO NORTHLAND RAIL SERVICE

Mr. G. E. Smith: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs. Since the decision to withdraw rail passenger service between Toronto and North Bay by the Ontario Northland Railway was taken before the Canadian Transport Commission agreed to underwrite the 80 per cent subsidy on operating deficits, will the Ontario Northland now reconsider restoring this service?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I am not aware that the CTC and the CNR have come to some agreement with regard to the subsidy. I think there was some passing of the ball in the backfield. There were some overtures that they would assist, but when it came down to the nitty-gritty, as many of the members of this House will know, as to getting any actual commitment the commitment was never forthcoming.

I indicated to the CNR that if they wanted to reinstate and use the Northlander service for the weekends -- because they’re using their conventional systems now -- we would be willing to undertake that particular suggestion. But, at this point in time, I have not heard officially from the CTC that they are willing to accept that 80 per cent subsidy and at what price and what figure.

Mr. G. E. Smith: Supplementary: Assuming that they do accept and the Ontario Northland would then receive the same funding from the Transport Commission as the other two major carriers, will the minister consider reassessing regular stops between Toronto and North Bay not only by the Northlander but the regular Ontario Northland rail service, keeping in mind that the public purse is subsidizing the operation and that Ontario Northland should be assessing where the maximum passenger usage is coming from? Would the minister assure me of that?

Mr. Foulds: Is the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot) listening to this? He is exercising remarkable control.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I might say, further to this, we’re looking at the overall transportation system in the northeastern Ontario corridor as it relates to rail passenger service, bus service and the excellent norOntair service that operates in the northeast Ontario corridor. The desire and the goal of the ONTC are to provide the service that the people of northern Ontario really want, need and should have. We’re prepared to look at the suggestion that the hon. member has made with regard to additional stops on that route between here and North Bay.

Mr. Eakins: Supplementary: Speaking of service on the Ontario Northland Railway and in line with the Premier’s announcement of buying Canadian, I wonder could the minister tell us is he now serving Ontario wine on the Ontario Northland Railway or is he offering only French wine?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I’m not sure of that. I think I indicated publicly that we would make sure that Ontario wines would be served.

Mr. Eakins: Buy Canadian.

Mr. Speaker: I take it that was a supplementary, although one would have to stretch the imagination a good deal.

TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. Is the minister aware of the fact that in December 1975 I raised a question with the Premier -- and I think I have waited a reasonable length of time for the answer -- as to the release of chlorine gas in Niagara Falls, New York, which killed some four people and hospitalized 80 people?

In view of the fact that there have been three very serious accidents within the last week in which many people were killed when a tank car ruptured in the southern United States, I again raise the question -- a very serious question -- is the minister aware of the kinds of substances being transported over the Penn Central railway between Niagara Falls, Ontario, and Detroit, from that huge chemical centre to very densely populated areas in my riding? Is he aware of that kind of transportation of these chemicals?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I don’t recall the question asked of the Premier in December 1975 --

Mr. Kerrio: Would the minister like to look it up?

Hon. Mr. McCague: -- but I am aware that there are chemicals being transported in that area. I presume the member would like them transported by some other route.

An hon. member: What have you got against the railroad?

Mr. Kerrio: Yes. My supplementary question would be: Is the minister aware of the types of substances and dangerous chemicals that are being railed over that route, and would he as an alternative see if he can reroute those kind of chemicals that could cause a disaster -- particularly in the summer months when there are literally thousands of people involved in that area where the tracks go through?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I am sure it would be very difficult to find a route that suits everyone. I will be glad to look into the matter to see if there is anything that can be done.

Mr. Martel: By an Overlander.

Mr. Makarchuk: Supplementary: Can the minister indicate at this time what emergency procedures or personnel he has available to take care of some accident that could happen on that railway?

Mr. Laughren: Send Lorne out.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, as the member probably knows, we are at every accident site very quickly. There is an emergency plan.

Mr. Kerrio: Supplementary: Would the minister take action that would cause him to be on the scene before the accident occurs? That is my question.

Mr. Havrot: Great thinking over there.

Mr. Deans: I can’t wait to hear the answer.

Mr. Kennedy: We need a clairvoyant minister.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Vince, you aren’t even smiling.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I can’t hear the answer.

Mr. Deans: Speak loudly. I want to hear.

Hon. Mr. McCague: In the past two and a half years, I can think of a couple of very bad accidents that happened in Niagara.

Interjections.

Mr. Kerrio: Actually, one was in 1975.

Mr. Warner: The one that is here is the good one.

Hon. Mr. McCague: I mean in chemical terms.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, we will take this under consideration. They must be transported by some means or banned. It is very difficult to say that they won’t be moved in those ways. I think we can probably do better than we have in the past, by warning all kinds of people of the hazards of various materials, and we are working towards an education program in those matters.

Mr. B. Newman: Supplementary: As the railroad tracks that are generally used are the CPR tracks, because of the international railway tunnel, will the minister use his office to see that under no circumstance the tracks use the area that is referred to as the “Powell siding” in the city of Windsor because it happens to be a fairly well developed, fairly heavily populated area, and under no circumstance do the people in the city of Windsor want toxic and dangerous chemicals within 50 yards of their homes?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I will make a commitment to look into the matter.

[2:45]

PCB HAZARD

Mr. Mackenzie: A question of the Minister of the Environment: Can the minister inform the House if employees of the Ferranti-Packard plant in St. Catharines are still repairing transformers containing a coolant containing PCBs? Would the minister inquire into the medical and WCB records of the employees present and past -- including some who have since died -- and report back to the House as to whether or not there were any effects from working with the PCB coolant?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I feel that question is more appropriately directed to the Minister of Labour.

Mr. Deans: No. She doesn’t know the answer either.

Mr. Martel: She is fuming though.

Mr. Mackenzie: I really thought it would be the Minister of the Environment, but I will redirect it to the Minister of Labour.

Mr. Lewis: Good luck.

Mr. Mackenzie: Would she state as to whether or not the employees at Ferranti-Packard are working with this coolant in repairing the transformers?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding that there were no transformers either being repaired or built in which PCBs were used. But I shall most certainly investigate to determine whether the workers in those plants are being exposed to PCBs, and will also investigate the medical records of those who have been in those plants and report.

MINORITY LANGUAGE RIGHTS

Mr. Kerrio: What are you asking this Premier for?

Mr. Rotenberg: At the present time, citizens of Canada --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

I have made this view known to the Premier of the province of Quebec. It’s a view I have held very strongly.

In spite of the fact that at the conference -- and I want to make this clear -- the question of a constitutional amendment was not formally up for discussion there because the Premier of Quebec has made it very clear he would not participate in any such discussion, I still feel that, while some other premiers do not yet share this point of view, one of the best solutions which Ontario will continue to support -- and I emphasize this very strongly, in my view, knowing that the constitution provides the educational jurisdiction for the provinces -- could be an amendment entrenched in the constitution providing for minority languages in the two official languages of Canada.

Mr. di Santo: Supplementary: Apart from the fact that the teaching of other languages was not the subject of the conference of the premiers in Montreal last week, does the Premier think that the province of Ontario, on its own, can implement the teaching of other languages through the heritage language program which was introduced last year, removing the difficulties that now make it difficult for boards of education to adopt that program because of the funding formula?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think that would be a question more properly put to the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells), who has just arrived, and he could take 10 or 15 minutes in a very important answer to that important question.

Ms. Gigantes: Supplementary.

Mr. Warner: He shuffled it off. That’s a copout.

Ms. Gigantes: He never answered.

Mr. Speaker: I think we’ve had enough supplementaries.

FINANCIAL PROTECTION FOR FARMERS

Mr. Riddell: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. At a mass meeting of farmers from right across Canada, arranged by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and held in Ottawa last week -- a meeting which, I might say, two members of this Legislature attended, my colleague from Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller) and myself -- there was very great concern expressed about declining farm income. In view of the fact that there was very little mention made in the Throne Speech pertaining to agriculture in this province, is the minister planning any new programs to deal with the serious situation that the agricultural industry is faced with today in Ontario?

Hon. W. Newman: I am fully aware of the meeting that the hon. member was at last Wednesday night in Ottawa. I commend him for going. I commend the Ontario Federation of Agriculture for the four points they made to the National Food Strategy Conference. Some of the most meaningful points made were made by the federation in their brief the next day. I commend them for their action.

As the hon. member knows, as far as declining farm income is concerned, we have a corn stabilization program in place for the 1977 crop. It looks as if there will be a payout on it. We’ve just finished working out a three-year program for the corn stabilization program. We’ve had many other requests for stabilization programs for various commodities which we are now looking at through the commission for stabilization.

We have the cow-calf stabilization program, by the way. The member might not have noticed the news release that came out from Ottawa where, with their great generous heart, they gave our farmers $5 a cow,

whereas we paid $38 a cow in the provincial program. I point out to him that we are doing things for the farmers. We are concerned about their declining income. That’s why we’ve brought in many of the programs we have. The stabilization program is a very important program, which is now just nicely getting into position, to help the farmers when they get into low-price situations.

We have the crop insurance program. We have other programs. We had a serious storm recently. I anticipate I’ll be making an announcement on that, as soon as I hear word from Ottawa, because that’s a shared-cost program. We are concerned about declining income and we do have programs in place to try to help the farmers with these programs.

Mr. Riddell: Supplementary: The minister mentioned a lot of old programs. My question was what new programs is he going to introduce? As far as some of the ministry’s newer programs are concerned, I am wondering just how effective they are -- and I am talking now about the Foodland Ontario promotion program -- when I read and hear that at the agricultural conventions being held in Ontario --

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Riddell: -- imported foods are being used. What is the minister’s response to that?

Some hon. members: Shame.

Mr. Riddell: And how does the minister account for the fact that imported meat is being served in the correctional institutions?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, it is too bad that the hon. member for Huron-Middlesex does not keep up with what is going on today, because if he had been following some of my comments recently in speeches I have made -- I will just quote a couple of figures so that I won’t take too much of the House’s time.

Mr. Martel: They are hard to follow.

Mr. Reid: There’s no shortage of corn there.

Mr. Martel: Don’t be bashful, Bill.

Hon. W. Newman: There were three million pounds more turkeys sold last Christmas than a year ago. That program was working.

Mr. Nixon: Put yourself on the list.

Mr. Foulds: You’re the biggest turkey of them all.

Hon. W. Newman: If the hon. member would like to join me this Thursday in London, I will be telling how the present promotional program is working. One chain of stores has told us it has already sold four times what it sold last year of Ontario winter vegetables because of our promotional program.

Mr. Foulds: How much more bull have they sold?

Hon. Mr. Davis: And the member thought he knew a lot about turkeys!

Mr. Gaunt: I am certainly delighted to hear we are eating more turkey, but I am wondering what effect the Foodland program is having, particularly in view of the fact that in January, at the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers’ Association annual meeting at the Royal York Hotel, the delegates were served orange juice for breakfast and imported wine for dinner.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You want imported wine for breakfast?

Mr. Gaunt: Has the minister reviewed his program with all of the major hotels in the city of Toronto, to alert them to his program and to tell them that he would really appreciate it if they would serve Ontario produce?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite as acquainted with the hotel business as the hon. member probably is --

Mr. Reid: Just one end of it.

Hon. W. Newman: -- but I can assure him that we are working continually to move Ontario produce into the food chains and in other areas and we will be making a major contribution to the restaurant people during the coming year. About marketing boards, the hon. member will be pleased to know that many of the marketing boards are now setting levies or raising funds to join in our promotional program themselves; they realize that we can grow it but we have got to sell it, so they are joining with us in this program to promote Ontario produce.

Mr. Martel: You have to get out of the bar, Bill, to know what is going on in the other rooms.

COMMUNITY LAW CLINICS

Mr. Lawlor: Would the Attorney General be at all inclined to think that the arbitrary decision cutting off Legal Aid funds to People And Law without reason is precisely that, an arbitrary and irresponsible position? Secondly, would he do anything to amend the regulation governing this situation?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Lakeshore knows, the regulation that provided for the funding of Legal Aid clinics was brought in at a time during which the future of many of these community clinics was threatened by the decision of the federal government to get out of this LIP type of program that had resulted in the formation of a number of these community Legal Aid clinics.

Because of my support for the community law concept, I persuaded the Law Society to agree to a regulation which would provide a better guarantee of ongoing funding for community law clinics. This probably was done in somewhat of a hurry, in view of the fact that there was some urgency involved in relation to establishing this regulation in order to ensure the future of these clinics, which I might say since the introduction of the regulation have increased in number -- probably they have doubled -- and the funding for community law clinics I think has at least tripled during my tenure as the Attorney General.

[3:00]

I say this because I recognize that the regulation in its present form may not be entirely satisfactory and probably should be refined in order to provide better criteria for both the guidance of the clinics that are in operation and for those that are seeking to be funded.

Now in relation to the matter of People And Law I recognize the fact that it would appear that no formal reasons have been given. I have indicated to the Legal Aid funding committee that it would be helpful if formal reasons could be prepared.

Mr. Warner: You should give them the money instead.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: And certainly from what I know of it to date, I am not sure at all that I can agree at this moment that the decision was in any way an arbitrary one. There were many weeks of warning, and it would appear from what I have been able to learn of the matter to date and my information is not complete --

Mr. Warner: It is the law society of upper-crust Canada.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: -- that the People And Law clinic had decided themselves to change their own direction from that of assisting people with legal problems to the assisting and training of clinical workers for community law clinics; they decided on their own, unilaterally, to change this emphasis in direction to matters of law and social reform.

Ms. Gigantes: They should have gone to the Law Society.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: And while it is perhaps a desirable goal in itself, it certainly was not the basis on which Legal Aid community clinics were established, and that is to assist in the delivery of legal services to people who have a need, a specific need, as opposed to the reform of society in general, notwithstanding the fact that some members might decide that this is a desirable goal but it seems to me that there are other forums.

Mr. O’Neil: You must read the Sunday Sun. Who wrote that

article in the Sun?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: That, in brief, is the information that I have at this point.

Mr. Lawlor: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Could you possibly find a supplementary to that?

Mr. Lawlor: Would the Attorney General be prepared to meet with this group as they have requested?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I would like to have more complete information before I decide whether such a meeting would be worthwhile, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Makarchuk: He is asking are you prepared or not?

Mrs. Campbell: In view of the fact that this type of clinic is serving a large proportion of the people in downtown Toronto who feel otherwise no access to the law, be it social or otherwise, would the minister not consider meeting without first being briefed by the Law Society, but rather meet with the people themselves at this point in time?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I don’t think there is anything that I could add to what I have already said.

Mr. Warner: Listen to the law society of upper-crust Canada.

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION

Mr. S. Smith: A question for the Minister of Labour: Does the minister agree with me that in order to fund for six months, on a temporary basis, until her famous Workmen’s Compensation report comes in -- in order to fund a 10 per cent increase in pensions -- that the cost would be approximately $4.5 million and that that money would go directly into the economy since it would undoubtedly be spent for the very basic necessities of life? Is that the approximate figure and cost that she believes to be involved in, for instance, a 10 per cent increase on a six-month basis until the report is completed?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I don’t have my pocket computer with me and I cannot verify that figure. I would think it is probably within the ball park.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary -- and again imploring the minister to bring forward exactly that remedy to the present situation -- can she advise the House whether one of the problems with the Workmen’s Compensation fund has not been investments that have paid poorly over the years, such as 25-year mortgages at five or six per cent, some of these investments having been liquidated at a loss of approximately $5 million in 1976 and $4.5 million in 1975? If this investment problem is a real problem for the board, can she justify why people at the very lowest end of the income scale should have to now pay for the unwise investment policy of the Workmen’s Compensation Board?

Mr. Laughren: Blatant discrimination.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the argument placed by the hon. Leader of the Opposition that this is the reason for any kind of situation. Nor am I aware that, indeed, the Workmen’s Compensation Board investments fared any worse than any other investment made by any single individual or any group of individuals --

Mr. Laughren: Anything the board touches has done badly.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- in the years 1975 and 1976. But I would remind the hon. member that, indeed, the Workmen’s Compensation Act precludes the possibility of any adjustment to the figures which have been established within that Act, without an amendment to the Act.

Interjections.

Mr. Lewis: So bring it in.

Hon. B. Stephenson: And it is not possible, Mr. Speaker, for the Workmen’s Compensation Board to be responsible for increases in benefits without amendments to the Act.

Mr. Martel: I’ll introduce it if she wants.

Mr. Cassidy: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister agree that her comment suggesting that workmen’s compensation recipients who find their income is inadequate should seek welfare is not only gratuitous but it is also inaccurate, in view of the fact that welfare exists to provide income for people who have no income and not for people whose income is inadequate?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I have never made that statement. That was a statement made by the hon. members of the third party and not by myself and I do not see any point at all in responding to that question.

Interjections.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I do not see any point at all.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege. I don’t have Hansard directly in front of me but I remember very clearly that the full import and implication of the minister’s reply was that workmen’s compensation recipients could seek additional moneys through the traditional remedy of social welfare allowances even if she didn’t use the words. She said it clearly and she is misleading the House now.

Mr. Havrot: You phoney bleeding heart.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I did not say it.

Mr. Lewis: I’m tired of the way you toy with that in this House.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I’m not like that, gentlemen.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. W. Newman: Come on, Stephen, watch your language.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

It has always been held in this House that no member will accuse another member of misleading the House and I will ask the hon. member for Scarborough West to withdraw.

Mr. Lewis: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. S. Smith: May I just have another supplementary if I might? Since both opposition parties clearly would be willing to support an amendment brought through for the purpose of helping these people get some relief with their pensions, which have not increased for several years now despite inflation, what is stopping the minister from bringing that forward? It would not break the government and it would surely be the proper thing to do at this time.

Mr. Foulds: Just give them what is due to them.

Mr. Martel: It doesn’t cost the government a cent.

Mr. Warner: Try being the Minister of Labour.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the hon. Leader of the Opposition is requesting that we amend the Workmen’s Compensation Act at this time or that we amend some other Act in order to provide for a supplement. That has not been made clear, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Foulds: You do toy with words, don’t you?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I would remind the hon. member that he supported in this House, not longer ago than last Friday, the validity and the necessity for the study which is being carried out. It would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that it would be entirely irresponsible to suggest amendments to the Workmen’s Compensation Act at this time until --

Mr. Laughren: Nonsense. You’re being irresponsible.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- we have the full report of that study, which the hon. Leader of the Opposition feels is a reasonable study to carry out.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Lewis: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. In Hansard of last Friday, February 24, it is recorded after an exchange between the Leader of the Opposition and Mrs. Stephenson --

Hon. B. Stephenson: I’m not Mrs. Stephenson.

Mr. Lewis: I’m quoting the Hon. Mrs. Stephenson as named in the draft of Hansard. I wouldn’t impute things to the minister that didn’t appear in print.

Mr. Deans: Who are you?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I know who I am -- just because you don’t --

An hon. member: Take off your mask, Ian.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Wash your face, Ian, you might find out.

Mr. Deans: Are you not Mrs. Stephenson?

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, I am not Mrs. Stephenson.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I’d like to hear the point of privilege if there is one.

Mr. Lewis: In Hansard, Mr. Speaker, it is recorded the minister said: “We cannot do it without considering the total impact of whatever modifications may be suggested” -- meaning increasing the workmen’s compensation allowance -- “but I would suggest to the hon. member that if indeed there are problems, there are sources available through provincial funding and federal funding which are available to the families of those workmen.”

What did the minister mean if not social welfare allowances?

Mr. Martel: Come on, tell us.

Mr. Lewis: What else did she mean? I withdrew the word “misleading,” Mr. Speaker, but I did it with regret.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a point I would like to draw to your attention and for your consideration.

Mr. Speaker: A point of what?

Mr. MacDonald: A point of order.

Mr. Laughren: It’s time the minister resigned.

Mr. Speaker: I don’t know that anything is out of order. You may speak to the point of privilege if you wish.

Mr. MacDonald: I will speak to a point of privilege then. Many times in this House, Mr. Speaker, you have quite rightly insisted that when a person says a statement is misleading they must withdraw it, and then when you have documentary proof that they were misleading there is no compunction on the person who was misleading to do anything about it. Would you consider that to see what revision in our rules should be considered?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, I never ever mentioned the words “social welfare.” There are programs which --

Interjections.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Well, if that’s your definition, there are programs of income supplement which are available.

Mr. Lewis: Tell us where they go for help.

Mr. Laughren: Explain yourself.

Mr. Lewis: Where do they go then?

Mr. Speaker: Order, I want to remind all hon. members of the House that the provisional and the standing orders we operate under in this House are not mine. They are the collective property of the House. The rules are quite specific with regard to the use of the word “misleading.” It is my responsibility to ask hon. members to withdraw. With regard to any deficiencies in the standing orders, that’s the problem, collectively, of the House, not the Chair.

Mr. Lewis: On the point, if I may, Mr Speaker, I regret having used the word. I did genuinely and do genuinely believe that there is no other and was no other possible

interpretation to the minister’s remarks last Friday. We said so and, in fact, she understood exactly what she meant.

Mr. Speaker: There are many instances where there are differences of opinion as to what was said or what was intended, and it’s not the prerogative of the Chair to interpret what was said.

Mr. Martel: There are no other programs and the minister knows it.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: There is no such thing as a supplementary question on a discussion of this nature. The time for oral questions expired four minutes ago.

Interjections.

Mr. Martel: When did you start getting unemployment insurance when you are on compensation?

Hon. B. Stephenson: You don’t know what you’re talking about.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Resumption of the adjourned debate on the amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech of the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of the Speech from the Throne. May I go through the considered amenities of wishing you well in your latest term, hoping that the distinguished service that you have provided to this Legislature in the previous session will serve merely as a launching pad for the expectations we have both of you and from you in this session.

There is a line concerning my ministry in the Speech from the Throne which notes that several new pilot projects will be introduced in the community work program of the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

Before getting into the actual projects, could I take a few moments to outline the tremendous progress that has been made, not merely in this province but throughout Canada, in terms of having the community in its entirety take more and more responsibility for the behaviour problems, for the particular difficulties of the offender against the Criminal Code who, until the past few years, faced only incarceration, either on a constantly rotating basis or on an ever-increasing basis, as his accountability for his particular deed.

[3:15]

It is interesting to note that at the present time the community in this province accepts six and a half times as much responsibility for the offender as does the jail system. I think it is sometimes lost that where there are today in the vicinity of 4,000 sentenced inmates in the province of Ontario, there are more than 24,000 convicted criminals under probation. The reason I use the term “convicted criminals” is the fact that quite often the public loses sight of the fact that the only way a person can get on probation, including the supervision that is part and parcel of the order, is by being convicted of a criminal offence.

In the last few years, therefore, we have more and more turned to the community -- to the facilities both in terms of the relatively loose supervision that probation does provide, in terms of the resources available throughout the entire community in meeting the particular problems of the offender, be they concerned with emotional, psychological, drug or other behavioural difficulties.

At the same time, it is very interesting that we are now moving into yet another area. The federal Minister of Justice, the Hon. Ron Basford, is moving towards significant amendments to the Criminal Code that will provide the community with an even greater chance to provide the opportunity for the successful readmission of the offender into society. First of all will be the formal legalization, if you want to call it that, or the formal insertion of the community service order, as a valid sentence, in the Criminal Code.

Secondly, there will be a better definition of the fine option in terms of certain offences, in the light of extending more time before a person is incarcerated for failure to meet the particular fine that was imposed upon conviction. The fine option will certainly be brought out later this spring when the Attorney General of this province (Mr. McMurtry) introduces the Provincial Courts Act. But notwithstanding the desire in all jurisdictions to remove the jail option in lieu of fine from the sentencing procedure, the bench must still be provided with some form of deterrent for the offender who violates or simply refuses to pay the fine.

We are suggesting to the federal Minister of Justice that an addition to the present fine option sentence might very well be a community work order, in lieu of the failure to pay a fine that has been imposed. I don’t think there is anyone in this country, or in this province, who does not agree with the general observation that in Canada we are sending far too many people to jail for far too many offences. That isn’t being soft on crime. That isn’t calling for an easier approach to the offender.

It is recognizing the significance of the fact that in a great many cases jail or incarceration no longer is any form of real accountability for the offence, quite often works to the detriment of the victim, is an increasingly costly exercise, not just economically but in terms of the confinement of human resources, and that there are new approaches and new alternatives which can provide a more realistic accountability, both for the offender and for the victim.

Hopefully, the amendments to the Criminal Code will provide for direct restitution sentences; that is, direct from the court. As you know, Mr. Speaker, restitution orders under probation are now being appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, because there is the argument that they may very well be invalid under the federal statutes because property and civil rights are properly the jurisdiction of the provinces.

Notwithstanding the ultimate disposition of that appeal, it would seem far more logical if an offender in a property or a money or in a non-violent or non-injury matter were sentenced directly to restitution rather than being incarcerated, even with the result that in our system at the moment we are prepared to assign the incarcerated offender to a restitution centre. That would be purely for the purposes of going to work and paying back the victim directly. It would make the introduction of the restitution centre much easier, much more practical and much more widespread if there was a movement to direct restitution as part of the court sentence.

I don’t think there is any objection to the concept that restitution in lieu of incarceration is the coming factor in the correctional field. More and more crimes are white collar offences. The victim under our present practices seldom, if ever, can recover the actual amount of the monetary loss. In a great many cases, because of the way protective industries such as insurance work, he indeed pays an additional penalty by virtue of the fact that his premiums quite often go up as a result of the offence being committed against him.

At the same time, in the white collar field we have moved in a great many areas in the past few years to enable the offender to re-enter society and to carry on with his or her occupation. In the past, bonding or the lack of it really was an extreme deterrent against virtually any type of white collar offender ever expecting to return to his previous occupation. That, of course, by and large has been removed as a deterrent, and quite often now the white collar offender can rightfully do so.

We want a correction system that is based upon making the re-entry point into society as easy as possible. Then we are going to have to do something for the victim. The community work order or the community service order in terms of victimless crime is working.

Since the introduction of the pilot projects by my ministry, and by the Attorney General in October, there are now more than 310 offenders on such work orders.

Even on a conservative estimate, at least half of them would probably have been incarcerated in the past. One hundred and fifty offenders are working in the community in their spare time, as well as supporting themselves and staying in the community throughout the period of accountability, and that is the equivalent of a fair-sized new penal institution in this province.

The type of community work order that we are looking at now is only the beginning in this field. Restitution is, obviously, the second and the more sophisticated phase, and, hopefully, the amendments to the Criminal Code, as well as the disposition of the appeal before the Supreme Court of Canada, will expedite the massive introduction of such restitution centres in the communities of this province.

Finally, as you know we are a captive ministry. We must operate under the auspices of the Penitentiaries Act. The federal government in Bill C-51 has changed enormously the scope that will be allowed provinces in the field of correction. We will be assuming responsibility for parole of inmates within the Ontario system; that means two years less a day. We will be negotiating the exchange of inmates between the federal system and ourselves -- most particularly the female offenders from the Kingston Penitentiary for women. Hopefully, by the summer of this year, the Kingston Penitentiary for women will no longer be.

I understand the federal government has some other plans for it, but certainly not as an institution for females. We are prepared in this province to take Ontario inmates from that penitentiary and to house them on a fee-for-service basis -- because they are under federal jurisdiction -- within our own female institutions.

I would be remiss if I didn’t compliment the new federal Solicitor General, the Hon. Jean-Jacques Blais who, despite the many pressures of his office and the manner in which he had to assume it, is carrying on relatively fast negotiations with the province of Ontario and with myself to facilitate the takeover of parole, the exchange of inmates agreements, and other commonsense approaches to the matter of how best we can rationalize the use of incarceration facilities within the province of Ontario regardless of whose jurisdiction they come under.

The emphasis upon the community, as the integral part of coming to grips with the problems of the offender -- and not just the youth-oriented offender, as has been the practice in the past, but of the total offender-population wherever possible -- will return the jail or the incarceration system back to its original function; and its original function was the protection of society from the violent.

[3:30]

For far too long we have used jail and the system for other purposes. We have gone far beyond the original intent of containing the violent for the sake of public safety.

The community work order, the restitution order, the efforts by the federal government and by ourselves for a more effective and rational use of the correctional system -- and by that I mean primarily in the community and using the jail only as the last and final resort -- will pay enormous dividends in this province in the future, not just in terms of money and new approaches to the problems of the offender, but in the ability of a community to marshal its own resources to return back to it human resources that otherwise would have been consigned elsewhere and virtually wasted because of the inability of the much more inflexible incarceration system to deal with all the vagaries of the human condition.

Mr. Conway: It’s a particular pleasure to follow my fellow Celt from Scarborough Centre in this Throne Speech debate -- Hibernian perhaps.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I thought you called me something else.

Mr. Conway: I read that front page speech in the Catholic Register and I haven’t got over it yet. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks by once again congratulating you on your very appropriate and distinguished re-elevation to the position of Deputy Speaker. I want also to take this opportunity to congratulate a fellow eastern Ontarian, namely the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), who has been most recently brought to public attention as a surprising, I think, but nonetheless convincing winner in the recent Ontario New Democratic Party’s convention.

Interjections.

Mr. Conway: I note that some of the loudest applause from this packed House this afternoon emanated from the chair of the member for Carleton East (Ms. Gigantes). I can see that those regional differences that preceded the convention have been ameliorated and now the applause is a complete and happy one.

Indeed, I was thinking with respect to that very famous convention of a situation that paralleled the Pearson years in Ottawa in the mid-1960s. When a certain difficulty and hardship afflicted the Liberal Party, Pearson’s answer was three wise men from the province of Quebec, Pelletier, Trudeau and Marchand.

As I looked at that very surprising convention in Toronto a few weeks ago that produced my colleague from Ottawa Centre as the final victor, I looked and I saw that he had but a corporal’s guard of caucus support. I thought again of three wise men. Two of those wise men are with us today, the members for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Ziemba) and Lakeshore (Mr. Lawlor). I wonder sometimes whether three wise men is not an appropriate place from which to start with leadership and aspirations.

I was away for the convention, but I came back to Toronto to read with great interest an

article that appeared in the Fanfare

section of the Globe and Mail on February 8. It was written by a certain Norm Snider and I think deserves the attention of all members of the House because it is a particularly witty comment on a very interesting convention.

The Throne Speech that was read here by Her Honour last week is the cause for this week’s debate. I want to highlight in my remarks some of the things I thought were positive and some of those things which I thought were clearly negative. As one member of the Legislature, I appreciated the frank admission by the government in the statement that government intervention will in future be less in general and more selective where it takes place. I want to applaud the government for some very positive initiatives which it has outlined in the Throne Speech as they relate particularly to the areas of job creation, however limited and restricted those initiatives are.

I want also, in the presence of my friend the member for York Centre (Mr. Stong) who I see has just left, to applaud the government for a renewed commitment to the very special requirements of the education of seriously disabled young people in this province. I want to commend the government for its commitment to take seriously the problems of child abuse within our society generally and within our legal system specifically. Those, I think, are very positive things that members of the Liberal Party, and I know members of the New Democratic Party, have long called for.

This was the case particularly in the debate we had here not so very long ago insofar as the special education of disabled children in this province is concerned. I would strongly urge the government of the day to very quickly and very thoroughly implement what it outlined in that respect.

But there are some clear indications that, like so many other Throne Speeches from this tired and worn-out government, it is more interested in recycling programs which we have seen before than it is in designing a bold new approach to the problems of our economy and of our society. I, as a Liberal, was particularly pleased to see that the government, once again, has found Liberal policy to be highly recommendable. Specifically with regard to the sunset recommendations which were spoken of in the private members’ hour by my leader some weeks ago, the government has, I know, seen the wisdom of his ways and is promising an initiative in that regard.

As a member from eastern Ontario, I was particularly impressed with the specific commitments entered into in two very selected areas. The first of these promises is to provide “a series of studies relating to a commuter air service for eastern Ontario, linking key agricultural and urban areas to other parts of the province,” and that this “will be undertaken by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications to pursue both private and public options for air travel in that area.”

I want to commend the government for its attention in this respect. As one member of this party from that region, I will be most persistent and positive in my urging that this kind of a regional air program be undertaken for eastern Ontario. I have long wondered why it is that northern Ontario, which has unique regional problems that many members of this assembly have drawn to our collective attention, has been able to qualify for some years now for the special norOntair program while eastern Ontario, with some of the same transportation problems growing out of the regional nature of the community, has not been similarly blessed.

I want, while commending the government, to draw attention to one incident that relates to this specific area. Last spring, the federal government announced that it would be proceeding with a major reconstruction of the Pembroke and area airport, which is in the great county of Renfrew. Operating out of that airport -- and I see the member for Leeds (Mr. Auld) paying due attention -- is probably the largest, or at least one of the largest, regional carriers in the region, namely PemAir.

That airline was seriously and financially jeopardized by the dislocation that was to result by the temporary closing down of that airport to regional air traffic. The people of the community, the people of PemAir and others, had gone to the federal authorities to seek assistance and to some degree they were successful. But recognizing that the Ontario government has a responsibility to the people and the transportation problems in eastern Ontario, some of us made strong representation to both the political and bureaucratic levels of the provincial administration.

It was very clear that the government at that time was unwilling and totally unprepared to address a very serious problem that threatened the viability of one of the region’s largest and most useful air carriers.

I wanted to put that on the record because at that time I felt that the government of Ontario had real responsibilities. I saw that those responsibilities were appreciated by the community, by the local municipal authorities, but they were abdicated clearly and without, I thought, proper attention by the Ontario Conservative government.

I applaud this new initiative. I fully expect that my regional carrier, our regional airport, and most importantly, the people of Renfrew county and of eastern Ontario, can expect in the very near future concrete and decisive transportation policies vis-à-vis air travel that will alleviate the distance problem and the other problems that are endemic to eastern Ontario that seem to have missed the attention of the government of Ontario for many years. I wanted to highlight the problems that PemAir experienced not five years ago, not two years ago, but six months ago.

I was interested to see that the Throne Speech offered to all who would listen the usual amount of motherhood. Quite frankly, motherhood is the phrase for what’s being talked of in pages 16 and 17, where the government reinforces its commitment to the family.

I wondered what was in the Throne Speech to keep some of the backbench unhappies, like our friend the member for Oriole (Mr. Williams), content to the degree that he would stay with a party that he must surely be growingly unhappy with and about. But I see it in page 16, where it is affirmed for all and sundry to appreciate that the Conservative government under William Davis believes strongly in the family; right to the point of declaring May as family unity month. I read that and it makes me think of my Catholic upbringing and certain family overtones that in that religion relate to the month of May.

Mr. Speaker, it is with some interest then that the Throne Speech, having made those desk-thumping assertions about motherhood and family, that it goes on in a few pages to talk about the great achievements in Bill 59 which, whatever you think about it, has some rather interesting observations and new legislative requirements that I think impinge very clearly and very directly upon the status of the family.

I presume the speech writer for pages 17 and 18 did not know about what the speechwriter was saying on pages 19 and 20; either that or the Premier has his writers and the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) has his as well.

It was interesting to note -- yes?

Ms. Gigantes: What do you have in mind?

Mr. Conway: Well, I just wanted to draw to the attention of my good and hon. colleague from Carleton East what I saw as a logical inconsistency, in on the one hand a desk-thumping assertion for the great verities of family, and on the other the clear statement of support, as I think it should be, for Bill 59, which I think has about it some clear implications and long-term plans for the future of the family in the conventional sense as we all know it.

Mr. Warner: You have driven all the Tories out of the House except one.

Mr. Conway: I see the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere is here and I am delighted to have his quiet presence with us.

Mr. Speaker, I thought the Throne Speech ended on its most sad and sorry note, and that was the limp-wristed commentary on what this government and what this government party is prepared not to do to address the serious cultural and linguistic problems that beset the Franco-Ontarian of this the central province of Canada and about which I would like to make some commentary a little later on.

I was drawn to the remarks in the Throne Speech as they relate to eastern Ontario for a number of reasons. It has been a time since I have seen a Throne Speech, and I have been here, of course as you know sir, but for three years or three Throne Speeches.

Mr. Warner: That is too many.

Mr. Conway: I do plan, together with the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere, to spend I hope a few more days listening to future Throne Speeches, although I know this, Mr. Speaker, that none of the future Throne Speeches will be authored by that collection on my left.

Mr. Warner: I would not bet on it, Sean.

Mr. Conway: That it will be perhaps a frosty -- I promised not to read Snider and I won’t; but in the case of the NDP I am afraid I have seen the future and it’s failed.

Mr. Warner: If you promise not to read.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, the eastern Ontario region has finally, I think as a result of two very critical elections, visited itself and its real problems upon this government.

I found some relationship -- as I am sure you did from the prosperity of southwestern Ontario -- a relationship between an

article which appeared in our most national paper, the Globe and Mail, on Saturday, February 4, 1978, entitled: “Tory Fortress” -- namely eastern Ontario -- “Feels Taken for Granted”; and some of the direct, if platitudinous, remarks directed to those of us from eastern Ontario in the Throne Speech.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Did you write that?

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I recommend to my friend the Attorney General, who I hear in the vague, dark corners of Tory power might just have some aspirations, that he might look at Mr. Williamson’s article, where among other things the first paragraph says, and I quote,

“After three decades of drawing on eastern Ontario” -- and I want to say that drawing on eastern Ontario is a very polite way of putting it -- “as the wellspring of a succession of Conservative governments at Queen’s Park, there are clear signs of trouble for the Tories in eastern Ontario.”

Now I want to just recommend that to the future leadership candidates who are with us this afternoon from the government caucus, and to tell them that the initiatives that they entertained in this year’s Throne Speech, limited, as I said earlier, that they are, I think are going to be required to a much greater degree if they expect to survive in any way, shape or form as a viable party in eastern Ontario.

[3:45]

For those of us who come from that area, who don’t know the luxuries of Eglinton or the suburban prosperity of Burlington South, those of us in eastern Ontario under the tyranny of distance and the poverty given to us by 35 years of Tory dynasties here in this building, it is interesting to see what has happened politically in the last few years. We have the political cabinet from eastern Ontario where, as the

article points out, they have drawn a veritable well-spring of support. What has happened politically there in the last two or three years, in this region that realizes that with the Conservative Party there can be no effective clout?

We have my good friend from Carleton (Mr. Handleman) resigning in disgust about the directions of the government. We have my equally good friend from Carleton East Mr. A. B. R. Lawrence, a former member of the executive council, resigning in frustration and disgust. We have my equally good friend from Ottawa South (Mr. Bennett) being demoted.

Mr. Warner: I don’t agree with your choice of friends.

Mr. Conway: Worst of all perhaps, we have the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor), lately Minister of Energy, being fired -- or resigning, as the more generous

interpretation would have it. I suppose added to that we have the showpiece of their industrial and economic program, namely the Edwardsburgh land assembly, allowed to slide into an unhappy death, being promised instead to us yet another forest experimental station.

I just want to say to that for the edification of, among others, my friend from Carleton East (Ms. Gigantes), that we do agree with the former cabinet minister from Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Irvine) when we say that we have got enough forest in eastern Ontario, what we need are not more trees but more industry.

It is clear that the region from which I come and from which I am proud to say I come, is growing unhappy about the diet of neglect being fed to it by successive generations of Tory bureaucrats and Tory politicians here in this assembly. It was with some interest that I read two studies from the Treasurer’s (Mr. McKeough) ministry in the last two or three months.

The first of these was the study in the Ontario Tax Series entitled, “Reassessing the Scope for Fiscal Policy in Canada.” In a not unsurprising fashion, the study allowed as to how the main beneficiaries of Ontario provincial spending are northwest and eastern Ontario, and it goes on to point out that in the area east of Trenton the Ontario government spends more than $1,525 per man, woman and child, a full $143 less than in the northwest region, but significantly higher than in the rest of the province.

Just so that those of us who might from time to time draw to the attention of the government the regional disparities of eastern Ontario, the Treasurer and his ministry happily, if quietly, provide the people in the assembly with a study which highlights the good fortune in which we find ourselves as a result of his economic and fiscal planning. I just want to read what I think is a very appropriate commentary on that from the Renfrew Mercury’s editorial page of February 22, 1978, and it says and I quote, in conclusion of the editorial -- certainly not my speech, lest the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) smile too unhappily -- I quote:

“We have known for many years that our population is sparse compared to the Oshawa-Windsor corridor. We know too how scattered our population is and how much harder and more expensive it is to provide a comparable level of services to people scattered over a large area. The study” -- meaning this particular study, the Ontario government’s taxation study -- “ignores this fact.

“Not only do we have fewer people, but those living in eastern Ontario make less money than the provincial average. This is why we pay $19 less than average in income tax. But it may be reassuring at Queen’s Park to know that eastern Ontario is a main beneficiary of government spending. The people in this area have only to look around them to fully understand just how misleading figures can be.” Concluding, the editorial says, “We may be poor and few in number, but we are certainly not stupid.”

I think that editorial speaks to some of the very serious grievances, both economically and otherwise, the people in that region are ever more prepared to express fully both in a public and private way.

The second study that I think deserves some attention is the demographic bulletin of the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs, published in November 1977. It’s a rather quiet document but it draws attention to the population and migration patterns of the period from 1971 to 1976.

I found it very interesting, as one of the two provincial representatives from the county of Renfrew to find that in eastern Ontario the population change in the region was, in absolute terms, an increase of some 78,000 people between 1971 and 1976, meaning there were 78,000 more people residing in the region in 1976 than there were in 1971.

In percentage terms, this reflects a population increase of some 7.3 per cent for the region. But when you get specific and look at the fact that there are only two areas in conventional southern Ontario which have had a negative increase -- in other words, they had fewer people in 1976 than they had in 1971 -- both of those areas are in eastern Ontario. One of them is the county of Stormont, which had a net decline of 0.2 per cent and which is considerably instructive when you consider that the population growth for the region had been 7.3 per cent.

I think it’s useful to use the population growth figure as an indication -- granted, not a perfect or total one, but as an available research and statistical tool -- by means of which to determine the economic viability, progress and prosperity of the region.

The county of Stormont had one of the two net declines in population increase, and its decline was just 0.2 per cent. But most interesting, in terms of southern Ontario, is the fact that the county of Renfrew had fully a two per cent population decline.

It is clear from the government’s own figures that more and more people, given today’s relative migration patterns, are moving out of my particular county. It is clear that more people have moved out of the county of Renfrew than in any other region in southern Ontario.

Interjections.

Mr. Conway: I think, despite the interjections of my good friend from Fergus, that should give this government a particular encouragement to do something special, to do something specific, to take a fresh look at the regional priorities budget, which the Treasurer to his great credit, has directed in some measure to Renfrew county but where at the present time it is bogged down and there is, by at least one recent press account, the possibility that much of the moneys that might be made available will be lost for whatever intergovernmental problems.

I just want to say, as a member from Renfrew county, I am shocked and appalled to know that Renfrew county has the major population decline in all of southern Ontario. It is, I think, a very serious problem -- all the more serious for the young people, myself included perhaps, who have grown up in that area, who want to stay in that area, who want to work in that area, who want to contribute to the general community by working and living in that particular county.

If the government of Ontario needs any encouragement, or evidence that Renfrew county, over and above all others, needs special attention, I simply direct to the future leader’s attention, to the Premier’s attention, to the government’s general attention the demographic bulletin which leaves that very stinging indictment as far as the population and economic health of eastern Ontario is concerned.

Mr. Riddell: There are only three Tories in the House and they’re only remotely interested in eastern Ontario,

An hon. member: And none from eastern Ontario.

Mr. Conway: Given those unique and special problems -- and before I launch into the second part of this -- I want to draw attention to the fact that in the Parry Sound region, which has something to do with the next part of this little discourse, the population change was a positive 8.0 per cent -- significantly different from Renfrew county, which had a negative two per cent.

Surely that should be considered when we get into something that becomes very current -- I know it is today and certainly will be on Wednesday -- and that’s the government’s election plan to offer to the people of the Parry Sound region a preferential treatment insofar as the registration fees for automobiles and the like in this province.

You will all remember the trip that was made to Parry Sound in early May 1977 by the Treasurer, among others, with the election barely a week old, where he offered the largess of the Progressive Conservative Party to the particular region and the sitting member who, we were told, properly or otherwise, was facing a very serious political challenge; and those people were drawn into the special consideration being given northern Ontario.

I simply want to say to the government that for whatever reasons, political or otherwise, that kind of concession was made to the people of Parry Sound and Muskoka, people in my area -- some of whom live in the district of Nipissing and many who work for the Ontario government who see other people living in the district of Nipissing as beneficiary of this special treatment -- are very unhappy.

They are unhappy not only because of Wednesday, or today or yesterday whenever; they have, unlike their local member, gone and paid the extra dollars. They are unhappy because of the financial burden but they are in many cases more unhappy about the symbolic nature of that decision. They see only a political imperative, governing party or government policy -- and the member for Burlington South (Mr. Kerr) squints in his inimitable fashion.

Interjection.

Mr. Conway: That’s the perception. That’s the trouble with this government in eastern Ontario. You have got figures. You have got facts. You have got all kinds of evidence which directs specifically to the unique problems of Renfrew county. And then we have got to tell those people: “No, you don’t qualify for these special attentions given to your friends across the Algonquin park border, for among other things the population growth figures indicate a help which is not endemic to my region, to my country. You are going to have to pay the $60 or the $80, while they can pay the $10.”

That’s just not good enough. If you are prepared for election purposes to give special attention to Parry Sound, Muskoka, then I am here today to demand equal attention for the only county in all of southern Ontario which is undergoing very serious economic and social difficulties, among which numbers the family court situation in which I know the Attorney General has a particular and special concern.

As I said earlier, the diet of neglect which has been fed to us for 35 years, which is evident by an absolute dearth of political leadership in this cabinet, is simply not acceptable. Mr. Williamson, in his

article of February 4, drew special attention to it. The elections of 1975 and 1977 reinforced more clearly than ever before that we are not prepared to accept it.

I have got a petition, I have got letters -- which really indicate the growing indignation of people -- and nothing in recent memory has been so obnoxious to the people of the district of Nipissing, and it is my pleasure to represent them -- or the people in the county of Renfrew who make up that portion of the constituency that I represent -- nothing in recent memory has been so absolutely irritating as this very ad hoc decision to draw the line for the preferential licence plates right through the heartland of the district of Nipissing and right through the electoral district of Renfrew North.

You had better take a second look. I am here today to ask sincerely, non-partisanly, that you re-examine that particular commitment. I well realize the financial constraints that are placed on the Treasurer but I am here on behalf of those 28 people in the district of Nipissing, most of whom work for the Ministry of Natural Resources at the Algonquin Park centre in Whitney. They have written to me -- and I may just beg your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, to read what their petition says. It is dated January 27, 1978;

“Whereas the area of the district of Nipissing, south of Algonquin Park is one of the most isolated areas in southern Ontario,” -- and hear, hear, to that -- “90 miles from Pembroke, 120 miles from Peterborough and 65 miles from Huntsville, and

whereas there is no public transit” -- repeat, no public transit -- “within 30 miles, the nearest hospital and drug store are 30 miles away and a motor vehicle is a virtual necessity for everyday life” -- and I would almost be prepared to replace virtual with absolute necessity -- “and

whereas we already pay northern rates for insurance, hydro, consumer goods and gasoline, we the undersigned petition you and your colleagues, both in the government and in the opposition, to extend the $10-flat rate licence fee for private vehicles to the southern boundary of the district of Nipissing.”

An absolutely more reasonable request I cannot imagine. It is to the government’s goodwill that I refer it this afternoon on behalf of those people.

[4:00]

Ms. Gigantes: Eastern Ontario is dying and you want to give them cheap licence plates. All you have to offer is cheap licences.

Mr. Conway: I can understand what the member for Carleton East says. Certainly there has to be more done. But in the practical world of politics she must surely understand, as I know her esteemed and distinguished former leader understood more keenly than the rest of the lot put together over there, that these policy responses, however short-term, are extremely important. I suggest to the member for Carleton East that she reconsider her rather --

Ms. Gigantes: That’s all you are offering? Good grief! Just cheap licence plates.

Mr. Conway: For the consumption of the people of my riding, let it be understood that the NDP representatives from Carleton East and elsewhere oppose the flat rate extension to that portion of the district of Nipissing.

Ms. Gigantes: Is that all?

Mr. Conway: So be it. I well realize they have ceased to be a real political threat in our community, but I really appreciate the final nails being hammered into their coffin by their eastern delegation.

Mr. Warner: That’s wishful thinking.

Mr. Conway: I want to go briefly to a matter I think is of very serious general application to this province. It is something about which my leader, my very good colleague from Halton-Burlington (Mr. Reed) and this entire caucus, not only since yesterday but for many months, has expressed a great deal of concern, and that is about the operations, political and otherwise, of Ontario Hydro. I’m not going, least of all in the presence of that wunderkind from Carleton East, so illustrious a member of the select committee, to entertain a dialogue that --

Mr. McClellan: What is the German for dropout?

Mr. Conway: -- speaks to the specifics of the uranium contracts with Denison and Preston. I just want to register as one independent-thinking eastern Ontario member that I am very unhappy about those contracts.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I thought you wanted the transmission line out in your riding.

Mr. Conway: I am particularly displeased about, among other things, the recent intervention from my colleague the minister of whatever-he-is today.

Mr. Cunningham: Maybe he had better check his watch.

Mr. Conway: I am displeased to think that the net effect of that deal, entered into I am sure some months ago and signed some weeks ago, is to allow the people of this province, both in the short- and long-term, to be held to ransom -- and a fantastically expensive ransom at that -- by a private concern which is using as its main weapon the resources which fall exclusively within the public domain. I have to think that is about as serious a problem as this Legislature is going to face. I have to express the opposition of this one member to that deal.

I almost, in my fancy, agree with the NDP and agree with the Throne Speech. Inasmuch as the Throne Speech enjoins me to buy Canadian and the NDP enjoins me to buy Denison, I am tempted to unite the two in my response to those contracts.

But I was more interested in the role of Hydro in all of this because my grandfather, when he was here back in the twenties, thirties and forties, used to tell me -- not in the thirties, forties and fifties, but in the sixties and seventies -- about the great difficulty their Legislature and their government had controlling the Hydro commission and the Hydro authority of their day. I know the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) with his family past understands those difficulties. I am sure on daddy’s knee those stories were told in a particularly intimate way.

It was in that context that I sat on Monday of last week and watched, among others, the Premier (Mr. Davis), joined with his good wife and no one else, and I thought that was an interesting comment on the man’s particular successful political acumen. The Attorney General should take a good look. He may need that some day. The Premier sat there and you could just see a whole generation -- indeed, a whole century -- of Ontario politics crystallize, not only in the comments but in the confrontation.

He assured us then, he has assured us today and numerous times in between, that Hydro is certainly under control, that this government and that executive council over which he has complete control --

Mr. Warner: Under the control of Steve Roman.

Mr. Conway: -- knows where Hydro’s at. Then it was with some interest I read the Toronto Star Friday of last week, where my good friend the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor) -- God bless that happy warrior --

Mr. Reed: He found out the truth.

Mr. Conway: He found out the truth. How many of his predecessors in that ministry or related ministries have gone that unhappy way! What does he tell us? I can only take his evidence on the basis of roughly one year’s experience as the Minister of Energy largely responsible for the operation and control of Ontario Hydro. Front page, Toronto Star, Friday, February 24, 1978; James Taylor says, “The public utility has grown so huge it’s all but impossible for anyone to control.”

He goes on to compare it, in his inimitable style and his incomparable mental process, to the Bermuda triangle. It makes me think that those cabinet ministers over there have exotic after-hour reading taste -- the Attorney General and his moral crusade notwithstanding. He talks: “If you present a reasonable thought or directive it gets sucked into the Hydro system and never comes out.” I’d like to see the road map that allowed the minister -- recently demoted or deposed -- I don’t know what road map he used because he clearly got sucked in, but somehow he came out.

“If you asked Hydro,” he says, “to put a battery in your flashlight, it would cost you $100 for the house call.

“Taylor says Hydro’s internal bureaucracy is so tangled that often the chairman of the board doesn’t have the decision-making potential you might think he has.” Isn’t that comforting?

Ms. Gigantes: I don’t agree.

Mr. Conway: While the member for Carleton East says she doesn’t agree I can only imagine what information she might have that the former minister did not have access to.

Ms. Gigantes: We didn’t have access to any of the information.

Mr. Conway: I expect that in the corridors later I will be apprised of those pipelines. I noticed the former minister, in the Picton papers last week, talking about a pipeline that he didn’t seem to have that ran straight to my good leader’s office. So indeed there may be another pipeline into Carleton East about which, among others, my caucus colleagues on that committee would like to know about.

Interesting that the very day the Premier is standing up saying that among other things there is absolutely no question about the integrity of the government’s control over Hydro, we’ve got a situation in which the former Minister of Energy says there is no controlling Hydro, that there is absolutely a bureaucracy so tangled as to confuse any elected official and certainly to befuddle anyone else.

Ms. Gigantes: Do you believe that, Sean?

Mr. Conway: The member for Carleton East asks me do I believe it. You know what I was thinking, and I’m going to --

Mr. McClellan: Sounds like somebody who is talking to himself.

Mr. Conway: I don’t know whether I believed it at the time, but I remember reading a book which I brought for the Speaker’s interest and information. I know the Attorney General and I know the member for Carleton East have read it. It’s a book about Hydro. It’s a book called The Politics of Development.

The member for Carleton East says do I believe it. I wanted to, with your permission Mr. Speaker, very selectively quote from that most impressive, most powerful, study done by one of Ontario’s finest academics. Not the least of the praises came from the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) whose special privilege it was to review it in that very liberal document known as the Canadian Forum, which I read with great regularity and even greater delight.

Ms. Gigantes: Small “l” liberal.

Mr. Conway: I wanted to simply read from the conclusion of that book, and it will be a quotation of some length. He concludes his study of Ontario Hydro and the resource community generally with the following observations:

“No organization had more influence over the provincial government than the publicly-owned Ontario Hydro-Electric Power Commission. Unlike the mining community, it did not have to rely upon a tenuous bond of friendship with members of the executive for that influence; nor did its patronage depend upon contractual relationships with the government, as was the case with the pulp and paper industry. Hydro was itself a branch of the executive, with delegated responsibility in all fields pertaining to the generation and distribution of hydro-electric power within the province.

Since electricity affected almost every aspect of life, that was a frame of reference capable of indefinite expansion. Therefore, on account of its importance and proximity to the political executive, its only shareholders, the Hydro-Electric Power Commission exercised a preponderant influence over the Ontario government, particularly in the definition of the Ontario interest within the Canadian federation.

“The requirements of expert technical and business knowledge that justified and then established the autonomy of the commission also increased the dependence of the political executive upon the integrity and good judgement of the Hydro commission as its operations grew in magnitude and expense for, as we have already seen, the practical independence of the Hydro commission had its limits.

“In the final analysis, the executive branch of the Ontario government had to accept responsibility for its actions.” And how true that is today. “The more complex the recommendations of the Hydro commission, the more the executive council’s approval became

an act of faith.” Isn’t that interesting? I think that the member for Carleton East has a pensive stare justified by the very significant comments of Professor Nelles’s remarks.

Ms. Gigantes: Would you dissolve it? That’s what I would like to know.

Mr. Conway: “The more complex the recommendations of the Hydro commission, the more the [government’s] approval became

an act of faith.” And one has to wonder about the Denison contract and the act of faith being entered into there.

“The very size and scientific mystery of the organization inhibited constructive independent criticism of its decisions. Yet even public corporations are subject to the follies of error, misjudgement and deceit which usually complicate human affairs.”

Ms. Gigantes: Would you dissolve Hydro? Is that what you are recommending?

Mr. Conway: “As a result of its tempestuous history, the Ontario Hydro-Electric Power Commission had also developed a heightened instinct for self-preservation and a tradition of forceful political activism. The vigour with which Hydro attacked its detractors tended to silence all but the brave” -- none braver than my colleague from Carleton East.

And finally: “Since the Hydro commission was engaged in business pursuits, it asked for and received a veil of privacy that masked its internal affairs from public scrutiny. Thus insulated against criticism, the Ontario Hydro-Electric Power Commission possessed a degree of discretionary power unequalled by any other public agency. The judgement of the Hydro commissioners ought to have been questioned constantly, but the legislative facilities for that purpose did not exist.”

Mr. Warner: Nationalize Ontario Hydro,

Mr. Conway: I think that is an indictment which is as justified today as it was when it was written but three years ago.

Ms. Gigantes: Would you dissolve Hydro?

Mr. Conway: In conclusion, I want to draw attention to a project that was entered into in a similar way by the Hydro commissioners some years ago; it had to do with the availability of excess power and Adam Beck’s desire to use it for a wholesale program radial railways, and he just happened not to take into confidence the government which was paying for it.

In 1919 a Premier could write this to a colleague -- in fact, to the chairman of Hydro. I won’t read much of it but I know my friend from Carleton East will be interested.

Ms. Gigantes: I am much more interested in 1978.

Mr. Conway: The Premier of the day -- a Tory at that -- said:

“I might add further, if further explanation is necessary, that you” -- meaning Adam Beck -- “have never taken me into your confidence in connection with this undertaking. I know nothing of the facts or arguments in favour of the scheme except what I have read in the newspaper. I do not even know the names or qualifications of the experts who have reported on the scheme” --

Ms. Gigantes: Dig up their graves and ask them.

Mr. Conway: “Nor have I been furnished with the report of these experts as to the cost of the railway, the probable earnings of the road and the other data that would be necessary for a Prime Minister or a cabinet minister to have before undertaking to speak on the subject and to give advice to ratepayers who are assuming heavy financial obligations in the matter.

“Surely” -- again to Mr. Beck -- “you would not expect a member of the government to take part, unasked for by anyone to do so, lacking full and complete information relating to the subject.” That was in 1919; it was the Premier of Ontario speaking then and it was the minister speaking but last week. The point is, if my thick-headed friends from the left do not understand, that this great experiment in public ownership, which is socialism at its best --

[4:15]

Ms. Gigantes: Down with Hydro.

Mr. Conway: -- and socialism at its worst in this province presents the problems of human folly, of socialist bureaucracy --

Ms. Gigantes: Hand it all over to Denison, eh?

Mr. Conway: -- of political interference to such a degree --

Ms. Gigantes: Hand it over to Denison?

Mr. Conway: -- that I cannot imagine a better reason for denouncing the socialist nonsense espoused in the speech of Friday in the continuous clap-trapping --

Mr. McClellan: Do you want to sell Hydro? Say so!

Ms. Gigantes: Sell it to Steve Roman.

Mr. Conway: -- of the left in this province. Hydro is at best a necessary enemy for this Legislature --

Mr. McClellan: Sell it to Steve Roman.

Mr. Conway: It has been for 60 years out of control. It must surely visit itself upon my good friends on the left as the best available reason and all the evidence --

Ms. Gigantes: Do you think it is impossible to control it?

Mr. Conway: -- they could want if they are sufficiently interested to caution us in any future endeavours in the public sector as far as economic activity is concerned.

With those quiet remarks, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that as an eastern Ontarian I want to see in the very near future some regional policies that specifically refer to Renfrew county. I can’t think of one better, however much it is denounced by my friend from Carleton East, than removing the penalty of the recent increases for automobile licence plates -- a small unheroic beginning, yes, I well realize, but I think if nothing else a possible immediate response to the regional disparities that we have suffered. We have suffered long enough.

I want to conclude my remarks with those suggestions and I know that among others the Attorney General will recommend those eminently positive and suggestive policies to his colleagues in the executive council. Thank you very much.

Mr. Ziemba: As stated in the Throne Speech and underlined by the Minister of Correctional Services this afternoon the government is considering alternatives to imprisonment. I take this opportunity to call for a moratorium on prison construction. As the minister has indicated, discussions and actions are being taken to reassess our whole prison system right across the country. Now is the time to talk about a moratorium and constructive alternatives to imprisonment. Federal and provincial initiatives in this direction are under way.

The thrust towards alternatives to imprisonment is 200 years overdue, and why is this so? Because prisons are like a sacred cow; prisons are where you stop crime. We have always believed that prisons will rehabilitate the offender, protect society and act to deter future crimes. All these assumptions are a massive deception In fact, prisons breed a climate of hostility and rage. They provide the illusion but not the reality, because about 80 per cent of ex-prisoners wind up back in these same “correctional” institutions.

Who is in jail? Of 90,955 people in jail last year, only 4,784 were charged with violent crimes -- crimes against the person, assault, robbery and rape. This is a little over five per cent of the prison population; 23,066 were charged with crimes against property; 29,774 were charged for traffic offences and 22,721 for liquor offences. These inmates, who make up 96 per cent of the prison population, could be released to a support structure in the community today. Keeping these people out of jail would save the taxpayers a lot of money as well as keep them out of our schools for crime.

Ombudsman Arthur Maloney’s report on Ontario’s prisons makes it obvious that we are sending far too many people to jail. We hear so much about our “soft bail laws,” but Mr. Maloney points out that almost 60,000 prisoners were denied bail and were kept in custody prior to their trial. He quotes the Law Reform Commission that Canada is one of the harshest western countries when it comes to prison sentences.

The sentences are far too long and half the prisoners shouldn’t be there.

This harshness and these long sentences are inflicted on those on the bottom of the social and economic scale. Prisons are used to warehouse native Canadians and other poor and powerless people. Native Canadians have always been overrepresented in our prison system. Alcohol combined with alienation makes them prime candidates for jailing. Seldom do the courts refer native people to any alternatives that may exist.

There are more unemployed young people aged 16 to 24 today than at any other period in Canada’s history. This same age group makes up the largest portion of our prison population. There is a direct relationship between jobs and jails.

We imprison drunks, speeders, minor property offenders, but what about the real criminals in our society? What about the monopolies, the price-fixers, and the false advertisers? What of the tax-evaders? What of the employers whose negligence of safe working conditions results in workers’ disabilities and deaths? And finally, what of the industrial polluters who poison our air, land and waterways? How many of these criminals ever wind up in jail?

The Ombudsman offers us two alternatives. Either we spend $88 million on new jails or solve the problem another way by not jailing as many people. In Mr. Maloney’s words, and I quote, “to decrease the public’s reliance on the highly symbolic but discouraging failure-ridden and costly resort to incarceration either before or after the trial of an accused.” The Ombudsman further states: “I feel that all aspects of community corrections merit the closest attention from the public.”

What I take this to mean is the involvement of concerned citizens in the community, not the continuing reliance on legal and correctional experts. I am not talking simply about sloughing off the offender into a group home in the community with inadequate support services, as we presently see in the field of mental health.

What are community alternatives? That is not up to me as an individual to determine; it is up to the community to determine its own needs and priorities. They would probably be different applications of the ideas of community service orders, restitution and reconciliation programs, as the minister spoke of this afternoon, day-fine systems, decarceration and decriminalization, community parole systems, alcohol and drug treatment centres, and community-controlled resource centres.

For instance, the Simcoe community is opposed to the closing of the Glendale adult training centre, because in practice it operates much more like a community resource centre than an ATC. Any system that attempts to reintegrate the offender back into his community in a humane way is what we want to see.

People who wind up in the criminal justice system come from the communities and almost all will wind up back in their community, so why should their stay in the prison system be in isolation from their community? Why must a community surrender its responsibility to, again, “correctional experts”? We must not continue the out of sight, out of mind policies of the past. We must move away from the present dependency-creating prison system and foster a community system that builds self-help and social responsibility.

The Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Drea) is getting almost daily headlines by boasting about the nickels and dimes saved on coffee and orange juice while millions of dollars are being spent on new and unnecessary jails. The Etobicoke, Scarborough and London detention centres cost $60,000 per cell, for a total of $36 million and this is just the start.

Prison construction is big business. The minister admitted in the December 7 estimates debate, and I am going to quote his words, that “right now it costs you three times as much to build a local jail per inmate as it does a fully-equipped hospital per bed”. In fact, he concludes by further admitting that “this is an appalling cost.” I wholeheartedly agree with the minister. Therefore I would suggest that he pursue the logic of his position and declare a moratorium on any more prison construction and immediately redirect the savings to alternatives to imprisonment.

We can save money on detention costs, we can save money on welfare costs, we can save money on subsequent imprisonment, because we believe there will be fewer repeaters.

The Commons subcommittee on penitentiaries agrees with this by stating, and I am going to quote from their report, “Many witnesses testified that if Canada builds more prisons, those prisons will be immediately filled. Conversely, if alternatives for prisons can be found for the majority who are not dangerous, some of the existing buildings will be empty. Thus, before entering into a multi-million dollar construction program, less costly and most productive alternatives should be introduced.”

In spite of this report, the feds are quietly moving on a $460 million construction program to build 26 new institutions, increasing the cell capacity by 4,712 over the next five years. Because the federal government is turning its back on its own subcommittee’s report, and because of a commitment to a moratorium, a number of groups met in Ottawa recently and for