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

July 7, 1977

31st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L014 - Thu 7 Jul 1977 / Jeu 7 jul 1977

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

MEMBERS’ INDEMNITIES

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY WEEK

HYDRO CONTRACTS

FRANCO-ONTARIAN RIGHTS

ORAL QUESTIONS

RELEASE OF REPORTS

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

RENFREW NURSING HOME

SAULT-SUDBURY RAIL SERVICE

CONDITIONS AT DON JAIL

CCAS DISPUTE

CUSTOM AGGREGATES

TOURISM

CCAS DISPUTE

MINING TAX

UNITED ASBESTOS PLANT

GRANDVIEW FACILITY

NORTH PICKERING PROJECT

BELLEVUE NURSING HOME

AGRICULTURAL TRADE MISSIONS

CONTAMINATION OF FISH

INDUSTRIAL WASTE DISPOSAL

HUDAC PROGRAM

RONTO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY

QUESTIONS ON ORDER PAPER

MOTIONS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY RETIREMENT ALLOWANCES AMENDMENT ACT

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AMENDMENT ACT

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

CLASS ACTIONS ACT

OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY ACT

CONSUMER PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

FAMILY BENEFITS AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FARM PRODUCTS PAYMENTS ACT

THIRD READING

MINISTRY OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS ACT (CONTINUED)

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

MEMBERS’ INDEMNITIES

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the final report of the select committee on the fourth and fifth reports of the Ontario Commission on the Legislature, tabled in the House last spring, included endorsement of a recommendation submitted by a consultant firm that the basic indemnity for a member of this Legislature be raised to $20,000 a year. We have accepted this recommendation, with appropriate refinements to meet the requirements of the Anti-Inflation Board.

The select committee itself recognized the requirement for this conformity and qualified its own recommendation with the statement, and I quote from the report:

“That the increase be implemented in amounts acceptable to the AIB beginning October 1, 1976. This would mean an increase in taxable income of approximately $2,400 effective October 1, 1976, and a similar effective increase October 1, 1977.”

The regulations of the AIB, Mr. Speaker, provide that it is forbidden to increase the total compensation of all the employees in a group in relation to the total compensation of all employees in the base year by an amount which results in the lesser of either of two increases.

Mr. Peterson: That’s a nice rose, Billy.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It was grown in Brampton.

Hon. Mr. Welch: One is an annual percentage rate of increase that is greater than the permissible percentage rate of increase determined for the group. For members of the assembly, this is a maximum of 12 per cent for the year beginning October 1, 1976, and 10 per cent for the year beginning October 1, 1977.

The second increase not allowed is one greater than $2,400 in average compensation for the group in the guideline year.

The effect of these restrictions is to limit to $2,400 the maximum permissible increase to the total compensation of the members in each of these years. What is more, the maximum must be divided between salary or indemnity and the allowances or benefits paid to the member.

The position of the government Mr. Speaker, is that in the year ending September 30, 1977, but pro-rated effectively only on September 15, 1977, an increase of $2,400 be applied to all members’ indemnities and allowances This is about 7.5 per cent of the average compensation of the group.

The September 15, 1977, effective date is in line with the commitment by the Premier in September 1975 to avoid an increase in members’ indemnities for two years.

This increase now proposed would, over a full year of effectiveness, increase the indemnity by $2,200 and increase benefits by about $200 in the form of increased life insurance, medical insurance and contributions to the legislative assembly retirement allowance fund.

It is also proposed that in the year commencing October 1, 1977, and ending September 30, 1978, there will be a further adjustment in accordance with AIB rules.

Provision will be made for a detailed, independent review about adjustment of the members’ indemnity and allowances on an annual basis, or as required, following the ending of the present wage and price guidelines.

Legislative amendments to give effect to these commitments will be introduced later today along with some amendments to The Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowance Act.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, later this afternoon, I will be introducing for first reading a bill that rewrites The Municipal Elections Act. As I indicated on April 15 to the provincial-municipal liaison committee, it is our intention that this new bill be held over the summer in order to allow interested parties to examine and comment on its provisions.

In the course of reviewing municipal election procedures, my ministry has received many requests for major changes from individuals, and from municipalities and their municipal associations, particularly on the issues of the election date, term of office and emergency election procedures. We have been meeting, on an ongoing basis, with the joint election committee of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers to discuss more than 50 recommendations for primarily technical amendments to improve election procedures.

The very volume of requests for consideration has necessitated the drafting of a completely new Act. The bill I am introducing today incorporates many of these suggested changes and reflects the government’s intention to provide clear and concise election procedures for the municipal governments of this province.

I would like to highlight the significant changes that have been incorporated in the legislation. First, of course, is the change in the election date. We received many requests for a change of date, ranging from early spring through summer and fall, but there has never been a clear consensus.

We continue to hold the view that one date is better than several. It is proposed to change the election date for all municipalities from the first Monday in December to the third Monday in November, which represents a two-to-three-week shift. As it is now, the enumeration conducted by the Ministry of Revenue for both election and assessment purposes is optimally conducted in the fall --

Mr. Sargent: It is none of the Treasurer’s business. Let them set their own dates.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- and requires at least one full month to be completed. This, in combination with the variety of other complex, time-consuming election procedures --

Mr. Sargent: The Treasurer has always got to have his finger on everything.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- has proved the third Monday in November to be the most feasible date.

Mr. Wildman: October would be much better for the north.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Over time, as the process is refined, it may be that the municipal enumeration and other procedures can be further shortened, and at that time we will be prepared to look again at the issue of the municipal election date. In the meantime, the third Monday in November is the acceptable alternative.

Mr. Wildman: Oh, come on.

Mr. Deans: That’s ridiculous.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The mandatory advance polls will facilitate voting as early as the middle of November.

We have made no change in the time at which new councils organize themselves. We would like to run through the 1978 elections at least, with the election date on the third Monday in November and the start-up date for councils on January 1. Should this experience indicate that councils may organize more effectively in December for the upcoming term, we certainly would be prepared to look at this matter again, and would do so particularly in conjunction with the possibility of an earlier election date.

The change in date has required changing some election procedures, such as the preparation, posting and revision of the preliminary list of electors. In addition, the nomination period has been reduced to a single nomination day, but individuals are permitted to file nomination papers during the week preceding the nomination day.

The government has considered a number of requests for changes in the municipal term of office. There has been some pressure for change and it may well prove that a longer municipal council term will be appropriate. Mr. Robarts and Dr. Mayo have both advanced arguments for a three-year term, while Mr. Archer advocates retaining a two-year term and the municipalities are split on the question. However, for the purposes of the municipal elections in 1978, we have decided to continue with the two-year municipal term of office.

Members will recall that severe weather during the December 1974 elections created difficulties in some municipalities. Since that time, there has been considerable discussion on the inadequacy of the provisions for the conduct of elections in emergency situations. The legislation now clearly provides that the clerk, as returning officer, has authority to determine and declare an emergency situation and to make necessary arrangements for the safe, secret and orderly conduct of the poll.

A new provision is included in the bill which prohibits any form of campaign literature within the polling place, and the bounds of the polling place have been defined.

Candidates will no longer be required to have their occupations listed on nomination papers or on the ballot.

From now on, municipal candidates are prohibited from acting as election officials, as are provincial candidates in provincial elections.

Provision has been made to require municipal polls to be open from 9 a.m. until 8 p.m., which is consistent with the polling hours which generally apply for provincial elections.

Moreover, there will now be two mandatory advance polls, one on the Saturday, nine days before the polling date; the other on the Monday, seven days before the polling date. These provisions increase appreciably the access of electors to the polls.

Further, the length of time during which a person who has been appointed a voting proxy may apply for the appropriate certificate has been extended by three days.

The authority for a municipality to use bilingual forms prescribed under the Act has been expanded to include any notice required under the Act to be posted or mailed.

Finally, any eligible elector will now be entitled to vote on a money bylaw question, but no corporation will be so entitled.

I would like to mention briefly that we received many requests to require a deposit by candidates for a municipal office, or to require an increase in the number of signatures required on nomination papers. These requests have been rejected. A procedure of deposits by candidates is inconsistent with democratic principles and runs counter to this government’s firm belief that election to public office must be accessible to all eligible citizens.

We have rejected the request to increase the number of signatures required on nomination papers. The possible benefits this might have in reducing the likelihood or number of frivolous candidates is outweighed by our interest in encouraging participation in government. These decisions were taken before receiving Mr. Robarts’ cogent arguments on Monday last. Our position will be re-examined between now and second reading in view of Mr. Robarts’ reasoning and other opinions which will undoubtedly be received.

It should be said in closing that this bill is not going to satisfy everyone in all its aspects. This bill will be held at first reading until the fall in order that we may have the benefit of the further comments of interested municipalities, municipal associations and the public. We hope to meet over the summer with the joint election committee of AMO-AMCTO to receive their further comments and suggestions. It is important that this legislation be considered and finalized in the fall, which will allow sufficient time for all those affected by the Act to become familiar with its provisions prior to the 1978 elections.

GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY WEEK

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, today I am joining with my federal counterpart, the Hon. Romeo LeBlanc, Minister of Fisheries and Environment, in declaring the week of July 10 as Great Lakes Water Quality Week.

[Laughter.]

Mr. Deans: .That will be a big benefit.

Mr. S. Smith: Going to walk across Hamilton harbour?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Oh, it’s going to get better.

The Great Lakes are more than a dividing line between the dense population centres of both sides of the Canada-US border. The lakes and the lands which they drain is the place where some seven million Ontario residents live, work, and play.

Mr. Breithaupt: They sure do.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Recognizing the importance of the Great Lakes to the people of the drainage basin, the governments of Canada and Ontario will be holding public meetings next week in Toronto and Thunder Bay to review with the people the operations and effectiveness of the agreement between Canada and the United States on Great Lakes water quality, which was signed in April, 1972.

My federal counterpart and I urge the people of the province to take

part in the many public events and open houses across Ontario next week, in order that their suggestions and recommendations may be considered during the renegotiation of the Canada-US agreement.

HYDRO CONTRACTS

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, point of order, just before you call for questions.

Are you able to put before the House your ruling on the matter I raised before you, sir, a week ago today, in my objection to the comments from the Premier (Mr. Davis) indicating that any questions pertaining to the report that he called for on the investigation into Ontario Hydro would be sub judice?

Mr. Speaker: I was prepared to do that today, but in deference to the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), who I think will be interested in the ruling and who is out of town today, I will be doing this tomorrow. I am assured that the hon. Attorney General will be in his seat tomorrow morning when we sit, and whether or not he is here I will give that ruling then. But I believe out of deference to the Attorney General, because of the involvement of this particular matter, I decided that we should do this tomorrow.

Mr. Nixon: Further to the point of order, I am sure you are aware, sir, that this House is heading towards an adjournment within the next few days, and we on this side feel the questions in this matter are of prime importance. If you have the ruling now, I would ask you, sir, that even in the absence of the Attorney General, you should put it before the House.

Mr. Roy: You are ruling, not the AG.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think I made myself quite clear that the official ruling, the formal ruling, will be given tomorrow. If there are any questions arising on the matter, we will deal with them at that particular time.

[2:15]

Mr. S. Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and with every respect for you and the position you hold, I would like to know on what basis you withhold from the House a ruling necessary to the conduct of the question period, simply because one of our esteemed members is unable to be present today. I can’t imagine on what precedents you base such withholding of such vital information.

Mr. Speaker: I think I made myself quite clear. We’ll be delivering the official ruling tomorrow morning, whether or not the hon. gentleman is in his seat.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, if you’re prepared to deliver the ruling tomorrow even if the Attorney General is not present in the House, Mr. Speaker, then given the fact that the ruling can easily be communicated to him or he can be informed through Hansard, when Instant Hansard is available in an hour or two’s time, why could you not give us the ruling today despite the fact that the Attorney General does not happen to be present?

The Premier may not be present tomorrow. We don’t know that, but we do know that he’s here today.

Mr. Speaker: It doesn’t matter. I have assured the House -- and on this matter my decision cannot be debated, I remind the hon. members -- that I will be delivering it one way or the other tomorrow morning.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will be here.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is the Speaker’s ruling and it cannot be debated. We’ll call for oral questions and we’ll deal with any questions pertaining to that matter as they arise. Now the hon. Leader of the Opposition with his first question.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I just announced that the ruling cannot be debated at this time. We’ll hear the hon. member’s first question.

Mr. S. Smith: What I’m asking you on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is whether this is a ruling. If it’s a ruling you’re making that you refuse to give a ruling, then in fact we have an option of challenging that as a ruling. But if it’s simply a refusal to give a ruling, then it’s not a ruling in itself. Consequently, I’m trying to --

Mr. Deans: That helps; that really helps.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s real Liberal insight.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s very important. I would ask you, with every respect sir, could you enlighten us as to what possible redress is open to us if the Speaker simply refuses to give a ruling? Is there any avenue open to a member under those circumstances?

Mr. Speaker: I probably used a poor choice of words when I said the word “ruling.” I will be delivering the ruling tomorrow as indicated. As I said, we will deal with any questions that arise pertaining to a particular matter as they arise.

Mr. Sargent: What’s the reason for the timing?

Mr. MacDonald: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a different point of order because it’s been debated?

Mr. MacDonald: I have a related point of order. Would the Speaker inform the House as to whether he is doing this of his own volition or at the request of the Attorney General?

Mr. Speaker: No, the Attorney General had nothing to do with it. But what I have to say will involve the Attorney General and out of deference to him he should be here. I’m assured he will be here, as I stated before. If he is not, I will go ahead anyway. The Leader of The Opposition will have his question now.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have --

Mr. Speaker: Order please. I recognized the Leader of the Opposition.

FRANCO-ONTARIAN RIGHTS

Mr. Roy: I have a point of privilege, which can be raised at any time, on another matter.

Mr. Speaker: We will hear a point of privilege.

Mr. Roy: My point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, involves my questioning of the Attorney General yesterday pertaining to the rights of Franco-Ontarians and the right to use French in our courts. You weren’t in the chair then, but in any event, Mr. Speaker, I asked certain questions of the Attorney General on this. Last night on CBC television the Attorney General of this province was quoted -- and I’ve not seen this in Hansard -- as saying that any attempt on his part to legislate the rights of Franco-Ontarians to use French in the courts would be, in his words and he was quoted as saying, “window dressing.”

I did not hear him say this in the House but it seems to me if that is the policy, it’s somewhat cynical and an insult to Franco-Ontarians. I want to say that it seems to me net in keeping --

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Why don’t you wait and ask him the question? Ask him the question when he gets back.

Mr. Roy: -- with our attitude or the attitude of this province towards Canadian unity and the rights of minorities right across this country.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest the hon. member may, if he wishes, question the Attorney General upon his return on that matter.

ORAL QUESTIONS

RELEASE OF REPORTS

Mr. S. Smith: A question for the Minister of Health: Is the minister prepared to release two reports for which my staff have asked ministry personnel for the last week or two? The one report concerns allegations made by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association regarding improper committal to mental institutions in this province; and the other report concerns ambulance services, dated October, 1975. Can the minister explain whether he is prepared to release them and why such simple requests for such reports always cause us such problems with his staff?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I wasn’t aware that the Leader of the Opposition’s staff had made such simple requests. Were they made to my office or to staff level? Perhaps if he would let me know where they were made, I could find out what the problem is. I am not familiar with the October report; I will find out about that

We are reviewing the submission of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association; and as I indicated in announcing the review of The Mental Health Act we will, where we deem it necessary, introduce amendments; and, in reviewing their submission, we will consider whether we should introduce amendments to the Act, say in the fall session of the Legislature. But, aside from memoranda which have passed back and forth from me to my deputy and various staff members and reviews by the staff, there is not a report as such. If there is any particular information the Leader of the Opposition wants, I will be glad to give it to him,

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, I want to be sure I understand correctly. Is the minister prepared to give us these two reports? The one that he has, whether we call it a report or not, is the submission from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association; and there is the ambulance services one, which I think was raised with the minister at some point on a CITY television program, which alleges, whether it is true or not, that many lives could be saved in this province if we concentrated more on care at the scene rather than on rapid transportation? In view of the apparent importance of these reports, could he assure us that we can have them to look at?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: With respect, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the assertions of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, I would have to say I responded to that when I announced -- I think it was in this House -- the review of The Mental Health Act and the services for the mentally ill. Since then, with our staff and in particular with one of the legal staff, we have been considering that submission -- and, quite frankly, other submissions we have had -- in line with my commitment to introduce amendments as necessary rather than waiting for the whole review process to complete itself, as to whether or not we should introduce amendments in the fall.

I will give the Leader of the Opposition a response to that report of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, if that is what he would like. I’d be glad to do that. With regard to the other report, that has been a public document for some time -- so I was advised at the time -- and I’ll get him a copy.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Mr. S. Smith: A related question, but this time to the Premier: In view of the fact that the freedom of information and individual privacy commission will take some time to make its recommendation and, I presume, will be followed by a period of consideration by the government, is the Premier prepared to introduce temporary guidelines to take effect now with regard to the release of information, so as to avoid this constant cat-and-mouse game over individual reports that happen to be in the hands of the ministry and could be of importance to this entire Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I really don’t know what the Leader of the Opposition means by the introduction of guidelines, Mr. Speaker. I really don’t know how that procedure works. It’s a new one to me, introducing guidelines in the Legislature --

Mr. Swart: Like the food land guidelines.

Hon. Mr. Davis: They weren’t introduced in the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would only say to the Leader of the Opposition it has been my experience that, by and large, when the members opposite or others wish some documentation from the government --

Mr. Cassidy: They get refused.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- that the bulk of it is available.

Mr. Cassidy: Nonsense.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would also point out that this is why we have established the commission to study the issue; that is, to determine that which should be made public and that which should not be. But my experience has been that there has been very little that hasn’t been made public in one form or another.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, will the Premier consider -- I believe he knows what guidelines mean -- issuing to the civil service some guidelines regarding, basically, the kind of information they can hand out while waiting for the report from the freedom of information commission?

I would remind the Premier, just to give him examples, of the Foisey-Moon report on testing and evaluation, the interministerial report on residential services, and the stalling now on these reports from the Ministry of Health. These are the sort of things that make constructive opposition very difficult on behalf of the people of Ontario, and some temporary guidelines would be of great assistance.

Hon. Mr. Davis: In some instances, there really is no report to give. But, leaving that aside for the moment, I would suggest to the Leader of the Opposition if there is a particular report that he or any member opposite is interested in, if the member is having difficulties -- because public servants are human beings, believe it or not, and there are some sensitivities -- I think it is quite proper for a member to contact directly the minister who is responsible, and he or she may take the responsibility here in the House. I think it is a little bit unfair to be critical in a general sense of the public service because --

Mr. Sargent: What do you do if he sits in his seat and doesn’t answer?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I really won’t answer the interjection from the member for Grey-Bruce.

Mr. Sargent: He chickens out.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Who chickened out? Who was it who chickened out, Eddie?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Premier is answering other questions.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am trying to be as helpful as I can on how, if I were a member, I would seek to get this information. I would go directly to the minister.

RENFREW NURSING HOME

Mr. Deans: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. I wonder, before I ask, does the Minister of Health have any answer to my question from yesterday yet?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: On Renfrew?

Mr. Deans: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: There was an answer prepared before I left my office, Mr. Speaker, with which I wasn’t satisfied and I have asked for further information. There is another report coming in late today by another inspector.

Mr. Deans: I just wondered if there was any answer before I asked. Now for my first question.

Mr. Roy: What is your second question?

Mr. S. Smith: What is your second one?

Mr. Grossman: Second question, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: This is your second question, I presume.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would challenge that, Ian.

Mr. Deans: Are you serious? Are you serious that this is the second question?

Mr. Speaker: That’s what you said.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That is the second question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You have had three.

An hon. member: Three strikes and you are out.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Deans: You are joking, you are joking.

An hon. member: He’d better be.

Mr. Speaker: Is there some doubt? I understood the hon. member --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member asked a question of the Minister of Health. Now he has asked another question of some other minister; one, two.

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

Mr. Speaker: No, the hon. member for Wentworth will proceed, thank you.

Mr. Gaunt: I just changed my vote from Mike to Ian.

Mr. Roy: Get in some supplementaries, Ian.

Mr. Deans: It’s taken me long enough anyway. You might as well have let me ask two questions.

Can I then, by way of a supplementary question to the Minister of Health, ask whether he might be able to tell us what it was in the report that he got that he found unsatisfactory?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No.

An hon. member: That’s three.

Mr. Deans: This is all to do with freedom of information and care of the public.

Mr. Speaker: Now which question? That was a supplementary, I will accept that.

SAULT-SUDBURY RAIL SERVICE

Mr. Deans: I have a question of the Premier, if I may. Given that the federal cabinet has upheld the CTC ruling with regard to the discontinuance of passenger service from the Sault to Sudbury, is the Premier prepared now to make a statement in keeping with his promise during the election that if the federal government didn’t live up to its obligations to provide adequate transportation in the north he and the government of Ontario would provide adequate transportation, and guarantee those people there will be a service to meet their needs between Sault Ste. Marie and Sudbury, since this one is no longer going to be in service?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member in his question said “is the Premier prepared now”. If “now” is defined as meaning “at this moment,” the answer to that part would be no. In relationship to the longer perspective though, as to whether as a government we are endeavouring to seek alternatives, the answer to that would be yes.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary question: Can the Premier indicate whether one of the alternatives is along the lines suggested by the Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes) at the time this became a matter of public interest, that the Ontario Northland or some other suitable service by road or by rail should be made available? Has the Premier been able to prevail upon the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) to see the wisdom of that, as my colleague from the Sault has been attempting to do for some time?

Hon. B. Stephenson: He is not from the Sault, he is from Algoma.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t know which colleague from the Sault the member is referring to.

Mr. Deans: Algoma, my colleague from Algoma.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I didn’t think the member had any colleagues in the Sault as a result --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, he certainly hasn’t many colleagues in the Sault, certainly not enough.

I always, Mr. Speaker, listen to the constructive suggestions of the Minister of Housing as they relate to matters concerning his riding and those surrounding communities. They are always very worthwhile and very positive in nature.

[2:30]

Mr. Deans: What did the Premier think of his $600,000 expenditure?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Whether this particular suggestion has practical application, of course, is something that we have to assess.

Mr. Deans: When?

Mr. Wildman: Supplementary: Is the Premier aware that at the time of the original hearing in Sault Ste. Marie in May 1976, the provincial government’s representative, a lawyer for the MTC, stated they were not against the discontinuance because Greyhound could handle the passengers? Is the Premier further aware that the day the announcement of discontinuance was made, Greyhound increased its fares between Sudbury and the Sault?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, Mr. Speaker, I really am not aware of the fare structure or when it was altered with respect to that service from the Sault to Sudbury. I must confess to the hon. member I am not aware of that.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: Mr. Speaker, can the Premier tell us if one of the difficulties the provincial government seems to have in expanding the provincial rail service throughout northern Ontario, which has been to my memory at least since 1970, has been a difficulty in negotiating with the federal government or with CN-CP for track rights along their routes which we would have to use?

Mr. Martel: What about the run you promised to Parry Sound -- North Bay?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, actually, to answer the supplementary question from the member for Sudbury East --

Mr. Speaker: Which wasn’t very supplementary, but if the Premier has a short answer we’ll hear it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- which had to do with Parry Sound, I’ve got to remind him he didn’t have many colleagues there either. But to deal with the original question, which related to extension of rail service --

Mr. Martel: That railroad you promised.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- obviously part of the problem we face, whether it is with the GO service or any rail service the province of Ontario undertakes, is the cost fact or with respect to either CN or CP; yes, he’s quite right.

Mr. Foulds: How come you can do it for the south but not for rail service in the north?

CONDITIONS AT DON JAIL

Mr. Bradley: A question for the Acting Minister of Correctional Services: In the light of the tragic jail fires in Stratford, in New Brunswick and as recently as last night in Connecticut; and considering his view that the Don Jail is no worse than it was 10 years ago, when its closure had already been recommended; and given the city of Toronto report outlining the intolerable shortcomings of the jail; is the minister now prepared to take immediate action to close the Don Jail, so that we will no longer continue to play Russian roulette with the lives of prisoners in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, like many at the present time, the hon. member for St. Catharines is suggesting we should close the Don Jail immediately. I’m sure that most of the members on this side of the House and all sides of the House wish that that were possible. However, let me remind him that in the last number of years since the province took these institutions over, some eight or nine years ago, we have spent many millions of dollars and done much planning in trying to update the correctional services and jail facilities of this province.

We recently opened an institution in the east end of Metropolitan Toronto for some 200 inmates. Later this month we’ll be opening one in Etobicoke for a similar 200 inmates.

Regrettably, because of the increase in the jail population of the Metropolitan area, for various reasons -- one is the reform of the bail Act, which was not contemplated some time ago; that is, the tightening up on bail procedures; another matter is Legal Aid, the long retentions during appeal period where the people want to stay close to their lawyer and therefore are kept in the local jails rather than sent out to where they might otherwise be, in some other correctional institution; and because we are at the height of population of young people at the present time who, unfortunately, end up in our jails as opposed to older people -- there is not sufficient capacity in the Metropolitan Toronto area to hold all of the people.

It’s easy to say close the jail today, but nobody has suggested any alternative for closing the jail.

Mr. Foulds: Try Minaki Lodge.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I don’t know exactly what we are supposed to do with the people if we close the Don Jail; where do they want us to house these inmates? Whether they are suggesting we should turn them out on society or not, I don’t know.

Mr. Wildman: Why don’t you build a new one?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: It’s very easy for the press and for other people to suggest that we should close the jail immediately --

Mr. S. Smith: And free the prisoners, of course. Yes.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: -- but none of them have given us any practical alternatives.

Mr. Wildman: Build another one.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Now I have said we are building jails just as reasonably quickly as we can.

Mr. Breithaupt: Room for everyone.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: We opened one last month. We’re opening another one this month. That will look after some 400 people.

The hope was that we would be able to limit the number of people in correctional institutions to some 200 people. One of the things I am examining is the possibility of putting more than 200 people in these new institutions. I don’t know whether it’s possible, but it may be preferable to do that than leaving the overcrowded situation in the Don Jail.

Mr. Cassidy: If it weren’t for crime --

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Taking some of these people out will relieve it, but not to the point where we’ll be able to close the Don Jail completely. We do have plans to get out of there eventually and I hope that we’ll be able to speed that up.

Mr. Sargent: Why don’t you try the old Hydro building?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: But in the meantime, we will have to continue at least to use the newer

section of the Don Jail for some time.

Mr. Foulds: This is filibustering.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: But I would remind the member that we took this over some eight or nine years ago. The Toronto jail was condemned many years ago, at the time when the municipalities and the counties had responsibility for it. Now the municipalities and the counties -- many of them and certainly in Metropolitan Toronto -- did very little about improving the facilities of the Don Jail. The province is doing its best and has done far more than the county of York and the city of Toronto ever did to improve the Don Jail.

So I can say, Mr. Speaker, that we are doing our best. We wish to close out that Don Jail just as much as anybody else wants to close it out, but we have to be practical. Now if anybody has a better answer --

Mr. Deans: I doubt if anyone has a longer one.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: -- other than to suggest we build another jail, which we are planning to do in the Mimico area, the Toronto south centre, we’d be glad to hear it.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, the member for High Park-Swansea.

I’m sorry. I didn’t notice the hon. member who asked the original question wanted a supplementary. So we’ll allow the hon. member for St. Catharines with his supplementary.

Mr. Bradley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A supplementary question: Would the minister provide the House with an up-to-date inventory of the number of prisoners in the Don Jail, together with a list of the offences they have committed; and second, of the number of prisoners in other facilities in and around Metropolitan Toronto? And would he consider relocating some of the prisoners so that the Don can be closed?

Hon. B. Stephenson: He just said that.

Mr. Williams: There’s one less than there was last week anyway.

Hon. Mr. Davis: There is a great transition; they move in and out.

Mr. Reid: The quality has gone up.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, without regarding the part of Peel from which some of the members in this House come, if we’re just looking at the city of Toronto, we generally need accommodation for a jail population of around 800 to 900.

Mr. Roy: Is that first class or second class?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: The hon. member asked a number of questions. He asked whether we would be considering relocating some inmates. I’ve already indicated to him in our plan that we do plan to relocate some.

Mr. Martel: We might try opening up Burwash again.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Good idea.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: But as I say, we have accommodation in the Don Jail which is overcrowded, no question.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: We have built these two new jails and I’m looking to see whether we can’t equalize them out a little bit, but they have to be within reasonable distance of the courts. That’s the whole purpose of it.

Mr. Ziemba: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Solicitor General suppose most of his problem is that he’s throwing people into jail who shouldn’t be there in the first place?

[Applause.]

Mr. Leluk: They didn’t keep you long enough.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Only those who arrange to go there, that’s all.

Mr. Ziemba: But what I’d like to ask him is, instead of building more, and bigger and more expensive jails --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. Ziemba: -- what I’d like to ask him is instead of building --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Those who make their reservations.

Mr. Deans: Where is your sense of humour?

Mr. Ziemba: -- more modernistic and expensive jails, he should be using that same money for alternative programs so that our young people don’t end up in jail and --

Mr. Speaker: Your question?

Mr. Ziemba: That’s the question.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: How about the older ones?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I’m not going to find fault with what my good friend is suggesting. We have in this country a disproportionate number of people in our jails.

Mr. MacDonald: We are almost a match for South Africa.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: One of the reasons the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) and I were down in Ottawa last week was to find out just how we could make amendments to allow for community service orders and things of this nature. And we were promised co-operation -- by way of amendment -- from the Minister of Justice in Ottawa. We ourselves are looking at procedures whereby we can speed up our own system; we’re looking at the problem of the administration of courts.

I would agree we have too many people in the jails of this province, particularly in the holding institutions such as the Don Jail. We are looking for ways in which they will not be overcrowded.

Mr. Speaker: Next question?

Mr. Roy: A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. There have been general questions and lengthy answers. If we have time we’ll come back to it, but we’ll get to a new question now. Are there no questions over there?

Mr. Mackenzie: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: I’m sorry. The hon. member for Hamilton East.

CCAS DISPUTE

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question of the Minister of Labour concerning the action at a mediation meeting on Tuesday this week, in the dispute with the Catholic Children’s Aid workers, whereby the union, in an attempt to show good faith, withdrew one of the major areas of contention at the meeting, and the response of the management of the Catholic Children’s Aid was to withdraw all offers that it had agreed to up to that point. Would the minister agree that there seems to be a lack of bargaining in good faith and that this is an example of where we can attempt to order them at least to sit down and take a look at what the issues are in this dispute?

Hon. B. Stephenson: The mediators of my ministry have been attempting to do just that but, indeed, if the union feels strongly that the management is not bargaining in good faith, it has a remedy available to it of which it has not as yet availed itself.

Mr. Mackenzie: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: At what point in time are we going to take a look at what the words, “bargaining in good faith” mean in view of not only this situation but a number of such situations -- whether it’s Custom Aggregates, or the telephone answering service, or you name it? We just don’t seem to have anything which means “bargaining in good faith.”

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Mr. Martel: When do you defend the workers?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the definition of the words “bargaining in good faith” is, I think, examined with very frequent regularity within the Ministry of Labour certainly, as a result of the deliberations of the Labour Relations Board.

Mr. Cassidy: And then it’s ignored.

Hon. B. Stephenson: There are instances in which the ministry, I’m sure, would feel strongly that it might counsel --

Mr. Germa: Why does the minister hate the workers?

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- certain parties to disputes to lay the charge before the Labour Relations Board but it is their responsibility. The parties to the disputes do have the responsibility of laying the charge before the Labour Relations Board for the remedy which is available to them.

Mr. Speaker: One final supplementary on this. The member for Hamilton East.

Mr. Mackenzie: Surely the minister realizes that to establish bargaining in good faith, or to establish the refusal to do so, is almost impossible under the current Act.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I’m not sure that that’s a real question. I just disagree with the member’s opinion.

Mr. Speaker: I didn’t detect a question. That was a statement. Order, please.

CUSTOM AGGREGATES

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yesterday afternoon the hon. member for Hamilton East asked me a question concerning the Custom Aggregates dispute. On April 22 of this year there was an application for de-certification filed before the Ontario Labour Relations Board. The board held its first hearing on this matter in May 9, at which time it referred the file to a hearing officer for investigation and the taking of evidence. The hearings are continuing and I'm informed that the next scheduled appearance before the hearing officer is July 12.

The hon. member also asked a question regarding apparent incidents, or alleged incidents, occurring at the plant, and the allegation that in most cases the workers who were replacing the members of the union came from the province of Quebec. I’ve been informed that there has, indeed, been a continuous turnover of employees at this location since March 16, 1977. However, I am informed that the employees who have worked at this quarry from March 16 to this date come from Toronto, Ottawa, Markham, Cornwall, Guelph, Matachewan, Oakville, Willowdale and Tillsonburg. There is no evidence at this time to support the allegation that most of these workers are from the province of Quebec.

In addition, the company has retained the services of a security company from Montreal -- which has an Ontario licence, I’m told -- solely for the purpose of guarding the property and the equipment. This security force of five people is required, the company believes, because the quarry covers approximately 200 acres and it was decided by the company some time ago to hire the security personnel after there were several incidents of sabotage to the equipment in that quarry.

Mr. Mackenzie: May I answer the minister?

Mr. Speaker: Yes. The hon. member for Hamilton East has a supplementary.

Mr. Mackenzie: Will the minister not ascertain or let this House know whether or not, in the hearings before the officer on the decertification appeal, three of the employees questioned and challenged were employees who were brought in from the province of Quebec, and were not working there before the strike started?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I am aware there is some question regarding the de-certification process and the acquisition of information in hearings before the officer. I do not know the details of that at this time.

[2:45]

TOURISM

Mr. Eakins: A question for the Minister of Industry and Tourism: In reference to his statement that the climatic conditions of this province are partly responsible for the lower tourist trade in the first quarter of each year, would he not agree that perhaps it is time for some of his ministry’s promotional campaigns to capitalize on the unique features offered during our winter season so that we might reverse the declining trend we have experienced in visitors during the first quarter?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That has really been the direction of our advertising program. I think if the critic for the Liberal Party on the Ministry of Industry and Tourism would look at the advertising program that we have submitted to him, he would see we have put tremendous emphasis on the winter attractions in the province of Ontario to bring people here to ski and to participate in other winter activities.

Mr. Eakins: Supplementary: Given the importance of tourism to the economy of the province in that it represents our second largest industry, and given the fact that the growth rate of revenue as generated from tourism has been declining since 1974, when can we expect to see the results of his ministry’s promotional campaigns, in particular the campaign directed to United States visitors that he announced when we brought this to his attention last November? I emphasize the importance of advertising in the United States because the Canadian dollar took another unexpected decline yesterday and it’s a factor that obviously has some significance on the tourist trade in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: A year ago when I was referring to some of the problems we were experiencing in the tourist industry, I related it to the fact that the value of the Canadian dollar versus the American dollar was not very advantageous to bring people into the province of Ontario or into this country and that we expected there would be a down position and devaluation of the Canadian dollar in 1977 that likely would help the tourist traffic.

We do believe in the current year that it will help the tourist traffic. To what extent, we are not positive at this moment, other than to say that in the immediate past weeks there has been a substantial improvement in numbers of people coming from the United States to this province and to this country. I say to the members of this House that Ontario has maintained its very substantial percentage of US visitors --

Mr. Sargent: In spite of you.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: -- in spite of certain people from Owen Sound, I will tell the member. Fifty-six per cent of all Americans leaving that particular country and coming to Canada principally come to the province of Ontario. That’s a marked improvement over the last seven or eight years, about a 10 per cent improvement, which I think is rather substantial. We attribute a great deal of that success to the advertising program.

The advertising program we have had has been redesigned in the last 12 months. We have gone away from television, I said this to the House some days ago, and we have gone into more selective publications in the United States. We believe the people reading those particular magazines and newspapers have a larger disposable income and the likelihood of them travelling into Ontario and Canada is much greater. We think this particular program will be very rewarding for the tourist industry of this province over the next 12 months.

Mr. Wildman: Supplementary: Can the minister indicate what attempts the ministry is making to ensure that the establishments in the province are giving the tourists the exchange rate? One of the major complaints we have in the Sault Ste. Marie-Algoma area is that the tourists are not receiving the proper exchange rate when they do go into retail and accommodation establishments.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I am sure the member will appreciate that there is no legislation that forces any businessman into honouring the exchange rate.

Mr. Reid: Including the Liquor Control Board.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Just a moment, I said “honouring the exchange rate.” We have suggested very strongly to the Chambers of Commerce and to the travel associations that they should suggest to their members as forcefully as possible that if we are to continue to have a good image in this province, we should honour the exchange rate on the money so that it is an advantage to bring people to the province of Ontario.

That’s the extent to which my ministry has gone through its field operations and directly to the Chambers of Commerce and the travel associations in recommending to them that they carry the message back to their members so that we can use that, and we will use it, as a plus factor for Americans coming to the province of Ontario.

CCAS DISPUTE

Mr. McClellan: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services with respect to the strike at the Metro Catholic Children’s Aid Society. As the minister responsible for the administration of The Child Welfare Act, can the minister explain to me why he has refused to meet with representatives of Focus and why he has refused to answer their four telephone calls a day since last Monday, July 5? Would he agree, please, to meet with them to review the implications of this strike?

Mr. Wildman: Very poor telephone service.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I have not refused at any time to meet with the group the hon. member refers to. When I was first approached last week, I immediately arranged for a senior official in my ministry to meet with the group. That meeting did take place, and I have been briefed on that.

I was not aware that they had been phoning, as he suggested, four times a day since that time. I would like to assure him I am concerned about the welfare of the children. The question of the dispute in the negotiations is a matter under the jurisdiction of another minister, it is not within my jurisdiction. The staff of my ministry is monitoring the situation so as to ensure that the welfare of the children is not in jeopardy, and I am assured that that is, in fact, the case.

Mr. McClellan: Supplementary: Given the current efforts to review the role and status of Children’s Aid Societies, raised again in the Robarts report, and given that the capacity for sensible and responsible labour-management relations will be an important consideration in deciding whether or not any Children’s Aid Society will continue to enjoy autonomous status, would the minister not agree that it would be useful for him to meet with the management of the Catholic Children’s Aid Society and communicate that reality as forcefully as possible?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am sorry, I obviously didn’t hear the operative part of the question. I know it was rather a lengthy one, and I hate to ask if he would repeat it, but would he mind? I am sorry.

Mr. Roy: Oh, come on.

Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. member just repeat the question part, please?

Mr. McClellan: The capacity for sensible labour-management relations will be an important determination with respect to the continuing autonomous existence of any Children’s Aid Society, given current review efforts, and the minister should meet with the management of the Catholic Children’s Aid Society and communicate that to it. Would he?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to inject myself into a situation where there is a labour dispute that is not within my jurisdiction. I will continue, through the staff of my ministry, to monitor the situation with respect to ensuring that the welfare of the children is not in jeopardy. It is not my role to intervene in such disputes.

MINING TAX

Mr. Reid: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources, notice of which he has been given -- 30 seconds ago.

Mr. Stokes: The answer is no.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister expand on his comments last night in regard to an

interpretation of The Mining Act in regard to companies making donations to communities in the province of Ontario? I believe he knows what I am talking about in that regard. Also, regarding the mining industry, can he indicate what action has been taken on the Ontario Securities Commission policy 3-02 in regard to the junior mining companies and their financing in the province of Ontario?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Those are quite distinct questions, I hope the hon. member knows. In effect, he slipped two into one.

Mr. Reid: They are both relating to one area.

Hon. F. S. Miller: That’s very much in keeping with my policy -- two for one.

It happened that Hansard last night incorrectly typed my interjection, and because it knew it had incorrectly typed my interjection, or assumed it had, it was kind enough to send me a rush copy. I just finished explaining the same thing to the member for Lake Nipigon.

My interjection last night, while the member for Rainy River was speaking, to say the least, at length, on various topics --

Mr. Reid: It didn’t seem that way to me.

Hon. F. S. Miller: -- was that in fact the 15/65 rule of mining tax credit compensates for the lack of the social investment allowance in many communities in the north. I probably need some time to explain this, which this period doesn’t allow me to do.

It took me three hours last night, and I had just gone through those three hours as I met the hon. member -- three hours’ listening to my staff explain the calculation of a model mining tax assessment. It’s a very complex thing, and I’d be glad to go through it with the member for Rainy River or the member for Lake Nipigon, because I think an understanding of it would tell them this: We have in Ontario the most enlightened tax credits of any province in Canada.

Interjections.

Hon. F. S. Miller: We’re the only ones allowing, for example, a full 35 per cent of original capital investment per year on northern Ontario investments for refining, concentrating, smelting and processing. It goes on for ever.

Interjection.

Hon. F. S. Miller: We allow this credit to be lumped against the profits earned by a mining company in the mining operations. Eight per cent is the lowest we’ll permit in the calculation --

Mr. Reid: Maybe the minister should send me a letter.

Mr. Roy: Oh, you can’t make that.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Well, the hon. member asked for it. We give them at least 15 per cent credit on the gross profit of the mining and smelting operations to offset the losses they may otherwise have had through not having this credit in the community. So many mines don’t pay any mining tax per se. They only pay income tax.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for --

Hon. F. S. Miller: Am I allowed to answer the other part, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I thought the hon. minister had completed his answer, and I’m calling for the next question.

Hon. F. S. Miller: No.

Mr. Reid: No, he hadn’t.

Mr. Speaker: I think that was your second question, though.

UNITED ASBESTOS PLANT

Mr. Laughren: A question for the Premier: Would he indicate to us and to the people in Timiskaming what steps he is taking to ensure that the United Asbestos mine near Matachewan --

Mr. Havrot: Why don’t you follow up first?

Mr. Laughren: -- will be opened, as was promised by his good friend and colleague, the member for Timiskaming, during the recent election?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will be delighted to discuss that matter with the member for Timiskaming.

Mr. MacDonald: This is a means of you getting together with him.

Mr. Havrot: Why don’t you wait till the creditors get that matter resolved?

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary: Would the Premier assure us, and the good people in Timiskaming, that his delay in making any kind of announcement or in refusing to take any steps whatsoever has nothing to do with the statement by the present member for Timiskaming on the night of the election that the victory was all the sweeter because he’d accomplished it without any visits from the Premier?

Mr. Havrot: I did not say that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am delighted the hon. member was able to accomplish it without my visitation.

Mr. Breithaupt: So is he.

Hon. Mr. Davis: And perhaps so is he.

Mr. Havrot: It was a reflection on the previous member, wasn’t it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can only say -- and I’m a very modest person -- that in spite of all the difficulties, my visitations produced more than those of either the member for Hamilton West (Mr. S. Smith) or the member for Scarborough West (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Havrot: Why doesn’t the member do his own homework? They’re really in bad shape over there.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He was so interested in the resource industry that he didn’t even want his leader in Sudbury.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Acting Minister of Correctional Services has the answer to a question asked previously.

GRANDVIEW FACILITY

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I have the answer to a question asked previously by the member for Cambridge regarding the future of Grandview School.

The member will recall that on April 13, 1976, the then Minister of Correctional Services, the Hon. John Smith, told the Legislature that Churchill House, a maximum-security facility, would be converted to accommodate adult offenders; that it was intended to use it as a backup detention centre for inmates from the Guelph and Kitchener areas and thus relieve the overcrowding in those jails.

This is still the ministry’s intention, and we do have a work party of about 12 minimum-security inmates, who have been thoroughly vetted for the job, living at Grandview School and working on the conversion of Churchill House to serve as a detention centre annex. These men are under supervision, of course, both on the job and at night.

The then minister also said that Grandview School proper would be upgraded and altered by an inmate working group for eventual full use as an adult training centre. My staff continues to see the facility as usable eventually as such a centre. In a letter to Mr. Norman Gamble, superintendent of facilities in the Cambridge community service department, Mr. John Jones, the ministry’s regional volunteer co-ordinator, referred to this development as follows: “There are some conversions going on in our ministry regarding the repopulation of the total complex, at which time much greater use of the facility will be made by the inmates.”

[3:00]

I understand this letter received local publicity through the publication of a report of the council meeting in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record. Mr. Jones was indicating to Mr. Gamble that the community could not expect unlimited use of the facilities such as a swimming pool and arena while a conversion is under way to adult use. I agree with Mr. Jones’s conclusion that community use of the Grandview facility will be limited by the reconstruction presently under way, and by any expanded program that might be initiated.

The ministry’s record of community use of its facilities consistent with security is a good one, and we will do what we can to assist selected organized groups in those recreational activities that it seems practical to accommodate at the Grandview facility.

If I may just add to that, the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) suggested to me that we should be using the facility there to look after some of the people we were talking about earlier. I am just saying that this is an example where we are using an old facility and upgrading it to look after some of the adult offenders, but they still must be situated locally so they can be close to the local court.

Mr. Davidson: Supplementary: I take it from the minister’s response that I can now assure the city council that the remaining buildings on that property, other than Churchill House, will not be converted into an adult detention centre for the region?

Mr. Speaker: I noticed the interrogative inflection that time.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I don’t think I went that far. I think we said we were converting part of it and we were not decided completely what we were going to do with the rest of it, but we were in the middle of a conversion program in making some of it over to adult institutions.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary, and ask a question, please.

Mr. Davidson: Can I then ask the minister, if there is consideration or will be future consideration given to converting that into a regional adult detention centre, will the minister also take into consideration that no action such as that will be taken without consulting with the city council of the city of Cambridge?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, we will try to consult with as many people as possible, but I don’t think I can bind the hands of any future minister for certain that that consultation will take place.

Mr. Sargent: Resigning, are you?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: We will keep the request in mind and do our best to consult with all those concerned.

NORTH PICKERING PROJECT

Mr. Stong: I have a question of the Premier. In spite of the fact that the Minister of Housing on Tuesday of this week indicated to the House that he had personally not received a notice of dissatisfaction from the Ombudsman with respect to the constitution of the North Pickering royal commission, did the Premier receive a letter from the Ombudsman on April 26 which stated that he was totally and completely dissatisfied with the setup and the constitution of that commission and that he found it completely unacceptable to him because he had not been previously consulted?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will have to check my somewhat voluminous correspondence with the Ombudsman to --

Mr. Roy: A lot of Tories are mad at the Ombudsman these days.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, no; he has more difficulty with the Liberals than with us.

I will have to check and I’ll endeavour to answer the hon. member tomorrow.

Mr. Stong: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: While the Premier is checking that, would he also check the date of June 27 past for a letter directed to the Minister of Housing from the Ombudsman?

In view of those two letters, and in view of the fact that the select committee of the Ombudsman recommended a change in the constitution of the commission, and in view of the fact that those whose lands are most affected refuse to participate, as well as their lawyer, would the Premier explain why the government is so reluctant or afraid to expand the commission and proceed with a full investigation, rather than having the commission confine itself to proceeding in the narrow manner of an adversarial nature?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I really think the discussion with the Ombudsman didn’t relate to any narrow sort of restriction whatsoever. I have a feeling, if memory serves me correctly, it was more a question of personalities. I will get out the correspondence and be delighted to inform the hon. member; but my best recollection is that it has been the counsel for those people who have interests before the commission who has decided not to appear, and I gather he made that very free choice by his own judgement. Certainly that is the impression I have had, but I will be delighted to get out the correspondence and tell the hon. member as much as I can.

Mr. Stong: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: This will have to be a final supplementary. We are running out of time and this is about the second supplementary now.

Mr. Stong: The Premier did not give an answer to the latter part of my question as to why the government is so reluctant to allow a full investigation of this situation, rather than have a commission proceed in an adversarial manner.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, my impression is -- and it’s only an impression; I must confess that I haven’t been to any of the hearings, I haven’t been part of any of the deliberations -- but my impression is that the reference the commission is operating under relates to the agreement that was made between the Minister of Housing and the Ombudsman and I think with the concurrence of the committee. I think the hon. member will find that to be relatively accurate.

Now if the hon. member is suggesting that for some reason or other he now feels the terms of reference are too narrow, I haven’t heard that issue raised. It may have been in one of Mr. Maloney’s letters, I don’t recall it. But I think, really, what the Ombudsman is endeavouring to raise is a question of people, not the structure or the reference.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: I announced it as a final supplementary. I think we should get on with another question. The member for Carleton East.

BELLEVUE NURSING HOME

Ms. Gigantes: I have a question of the Minister of Health.

I would like to ask him what provincial standards are supposed to apply to a residence such as Bellevue Residence, in Orleans, and if information I am receiving about Bellevue Residence, namely that there has been no qualified cook on staff over the last few weeks; that the residents are being served sausages, blood pudding and macaroni as a constant diet; that the septic tank system has been broken for several weeks; and that residents are being transferred to the Maclaren House Nursing Home, perhaps to increase per diem rates available to the operator of Bellevue Residence, Mr.

Steve Bordo, who also happens to own the Maclaren home --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. A question please, thank you.

Ms. Gigantes: I would like to ask, Mr. Speaker --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member, I think, has given enough background material. Would she please ask the question?

Ms. Gigantes: Yes, I would like to ask if this kind of information is of concern to him and what he’ll do about it?

Mr. Roy: Sounds like the legislative dining room.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Naturally, Mr. Speaker, that series of allegations is of concern to me. I’ll ask Mr. Corder, the head of our inspection branch, to report on it.

Mr. Deans: Would the member get the report?

Mr. Roy: Maybe you could send a cook from the legislative dining room there.

Mr. Deans: May we find out what is in the report?

AGRICULTURAL TRADE MISSIONS

Mr. McKessock: I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. In view of the fact that this fall the International Trade Commission is planning a trade mission to several European countries, and in view of the fact that other provinces in Canada are financially supporting their provincial Hereford association to send a delegate to this mission, and in view of the fact that the minister has received a request from the Ontario Hereford Association for financial assistance to send a delegate from Ontario, is the ministry going to oblige by assisting the Ontario Hereford Association financially and thereby encouraging the export sales of Ontario livestock?

Interjection.

Hon. W. Newman: In answer to the hon. member’s question, I do not recall getting the letter, although I have a great deal of respect for all the breed herds in the province of Ontario -- and the Herefords, since I keep a few of them myself. But certainly we are very interested in promoting abroad our Ontario commodities and we will take care of that. We will not be sending an individual over.

Mr. Martel: More bull, Bill.

Mr. McKessock: Supplementary: In view of the fact that the Hereford association wants to send a delegation over -- they don’t want the government to -- but they need at least $2,500 to do this and other provinces, such as Alberta and Saskatchewan --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is that not part of the first question?

Mr. McKessock: -- are giving far larger amounts, would the minister consider at least giving this amount to allow Ontario to promote their export sales as other provinces are doing?

An hon. member: The Hereford breeders can do it themselves.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure the breed association could do it themselves, but since I have not seen the letter as at this point in time, I will certainly give it consideration.

CONTAMINATION OF FISH

Ms. Bryden: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. With regard to the ministry’s environmental health bulletin of June 30 on mercury in fish in the Muskoka lake area, which issues some warnings about consumption of fish with excessive mercury levels in five more Muskoka lakes in addition to the three that were covered by an earlier bulletin in February, what steps is the minister taking to publicize these warnings to the cottagers and other visitors to these lakes at this peak vacation time?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: That press release went out to the media, was sent to the tourist association in the north, the hunting and fishing association of the province --

Mr. Renwick: Cottage grapevine.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- and it was sent to the weeklies in the area. It gets very wide publicity.

Ms. Bryden: Supplementary: the bulletin also refers to advice on consumption limits to be issued by the occupational health branch of the Ministry of Labour. Can the minister tell us when this advice will be available and how it will be publicized?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: That information will be included not only in the bulletins from the Ministry of Labour but also in the Ministry of Health guidebook which is expected to be out this month. We have that information and it contains more detailed information than the bulletins themselves. If anybody asks for it, that’s available as well.

INDUSTRIAL WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. G. I. Miller: I also have a question for the Minister of the Environment. He is well aware there is a problem of disposing industrial liquid waste. I was wondering if the minister has records of how much industrial liquid waste is being produced in Ontario at the present time, how much is being recycled and what the capacity is of the Tricil plant at Mississauga?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The hon. member gave me some notice of this question, for which I thank him. There are about 40 million gallons per year of industrial liquid waste generated in the province. The Tricil plants -- there are two plants, one in Mississauga and the other in Moore township -- are handing approximately 25 million gallons of this. There’s also a plant in Hamilton; and of course there’s the industrial liquid waste sanitary fill operation at the site at Beare Road.

As far as recycling is concerned, it is difficult to give the hon. member an accurate figure. About six companies are involved in the general recycling of organic and inorganic industrial liquid waste. It is being recycled in the metalworking and finishing industries; it is used for phosphorous removal in municipal plants; and the oil refining industry has developed technology to reclaim spent caustic soda, presently remarketing this reclaimed material to the kraft pulping industry. The reason we don’t have an accurate estimate of this is because recycled waste does not constitute a disposal problem, therefore it hasn’t been entirely documented.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Supplementary: Does the minister not feel that it is the responsibility of the ministry itself to recycle, to take care of the waste?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I don’t think it is the government’s responsibility to build plants to handle industrial liquid waste -- if that is the question.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary: Doesn’t that differ considerably from the position the minister took in 1972, at which time he said, I believe, that if private industry was unable or unwilling to go ahead and provide the recycling operations, the province would move in? Why has it not moved in, since it is obvious that private industry is unable to do the job, though it may well be willing?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: They are not unable and they are not unwilling. The fact is -- if the hon. member had listened to the answer I just gave -- both the Tricil plants are under capacity at the present time, they can handle more waste. It’s a question of whether or not this waste will be disposed on land or whether it will be disposed in plants where the cost to the haulers and to the companies is higher.

Mr. Deans: What is the cost of the alternative to the public?

[3:15]

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I realize that. The answer is to make sure that we enforce our regulations and make certain that the plants that exist at the present time are being utilized by the companies that are generating this waste.

One of the problems is the question of distance. If you have a plant, for example in Mississauga, and if you have another plant very close, such as in Hamilton, because of the lack of volume there isn’t enough business to keep both of them going. If the government got involved in this business and competed with private industry, private industry would probably go out of business and we would end up subsidizing disposal of industrial waste.

Mr. Deans: So you would rather just dump it.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: No, that was the final supplementary.

HUDAC PROGRAM

Mr. Breaugh: I’d like to ask the Minister of Housing, because we’re perhaps adjourning shortly, to table either today or tomorrow the information the cabinet used in deciding to disburse $600,000 to the HUDAC deposit fund to rescue those citizens in the Sherwood Properties development. I’d like to ask him to table the information on which that decision was made so that we may understand how it was made. Secondly, I’d like to ask him to make a slightly more definitive statement as to when that deposit fund will be extended and what the terms of that will be.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I don’t understand the hon. member’s question as to when the deposit fund will be extended. The fund has been established, it is now a part of the warranty program. As I indicated in a statement yesterday, the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations will be working with the board of the warranty program to bring the continuation of that program into being.

I also mentioned in the statement -- and I trust the hon. member has a copy of it -- that there will be an increase in the insurance premium, to continue that fund to protect persons whose units have been purchased prior to January 1, 1977, when the warranty program came into being, and whose deeds were not registered.

We realize that that is going to be a declining number. It will be only those prior to January 1, 1977; those after that automatically fall into the regular program.

Mr. Breaugh: Supplementary: The minister did not indicate whether he would or would not table the information he presented to cabinet upon which that decision was made. Would he be good enough to explain to us why he coughed up $600,000 without knowing how that money would be spent?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I’ll get what information I can for the hon. member to make available to him. I will give what I can to him because some of it was dealt with in cabinet and is not necessarily going to be made available.

Mr. Breaugh: I thought so.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I’m sorry, what was the latter part of the question?

Mr. Breaugh: Why did the minister cough up $600,000 before he knew how the money would be spent?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We understood exactly what the money was going to be spent for. It was for the purpose of protecting those persons who had purchased condominium units prior to January 1, 1977, and whose deeds had not been registered.

RONTO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY

Mr. Sargent: I have a question for the provincial Treasurer. I am sorry to flog this, but I have to get it off my mind. Last Tuesday I asked the minister why he concealed from the House the fact that he offered to secure a $2 million tax exemption for the Todghams --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think that’s imputing a motive which the hon. member should withdraw. He may ask a proper question after he withdraws this.

Mr. Sargent: My question is why he concealed from the House that he had this knowledge, yet the only way --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That’s an improper motive to assess against anyone.

Mr. Sargent: Why he didn’t reveal it then.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the hon. member take his seat in the first place. The hon. member is obviously imputing a motive to another member of this House, and he should withdraw that. If he hurries, we may still get in his proper question. If he will withdraw that imputation of motive then we will carry on.

Mr. Sargent: I withdraw that, Mr. Speaker. I say to the minister why did he not reveal to the House the fact that he is quoted in the Globe and Mail as telling the Todghams that he saw no problem in getting them a $2 million exemption? Then on April 21 he wrote a letter to Douglas Todgham and advised him that the cabinet had now granted the exemption that day. I ask him why he did not reveal this fact to the House; that he set up the exemption and did not tell the public accounts committee and had to be subpoenaed before a judicial inquiry so this information would come out?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, my answer is the same as it was on Tuesday. This matter is before a judicial inquiry and I leave it at that.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Mr. Sargent: I have a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a point of order?

Mr. Sargent: Yes, I do. Last Tuesday the Treasurer told me he would debate this in front of the television cameras outside. I waited for 38 minutes and he didn’t show up. He hid behind the curtains.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That is not a point of order. The hon. member will take his seat.

An hon. member: He didn’t say that at all.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: In speaking to the point of order, I did not say any such thing.

Mr. Speaker: I declared there was no point of order.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I have no intention of debating this matter with the hon. member. If the hon. member wants to repeat --

Mr. Sargent: You said you would. You are a chicken.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: If the hon. member wants to repeat before the cameras the charges and the innuendoes which he made in this House he may do so and he will hear from me then.

Mr. Sargent: Come on right out now and do it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Sargent: When are you going to?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: You’re on your own. You’re a big boy, go on your own.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Not together, you first.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You are not fooling around with Singer now.

Mr. Roy: The meeting is at dawn, choose your weapons.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. member for Grey-Bruce retain his seat? The hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton has a point, I believe.

QUESTIONS ON ORDER PAPER

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege. It follows the remarks of the Premier that information from the ministries is readily available to the members.

I would like to say that I have a question on the order paper concerning Browndale, which was first tabled on March 31, as does the hon. member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell). The interim answer indicated that an answer to my inquiry would be given but did not specify when. I placed my question on the table again on June 27 and it would appear that the government intends to ignore it. Will you rule on whether or not the government is circumventing the spirit or letter of the new House rules?

Mr. Speaker: I will have to consider all of the implications of that but, briefly, if the question was placed again on --

Mr. Eakins: The 27th.

Mr. Speaker: -- the 27th, I think there’s a period of time in which some interim answer must be forthcoming, or a reason for not responding. The two weeks are about up, so I’m sure the hon. minister, whichever one it was, will be guided by that and your words will be taken to heart. We’ll expect an interim response in the meantime.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to rise on a point of privilege in a similar vein. I’d like to draw your attention to the fact that I have now had on the order paper, since March 31, a series of questions relating to the operations of the Urban Transportation Development Corporation; and while an interim answer, indicating that more time was required, was given in April, it would appear now, sir, that the government has no intention of answering these questions, which I again tabled on June 27. I would ask you to rule whether or not it is your opinion that the government is thwarting the spirit of the new rules of the House.

Mr. Speaker: I can’t rule on that but I’m sure that the hon. member’s words will be taken to heart. There are still a few more days before the two weeks are up and I would trust that the hon. minister, or at least the appropriate ministry, will take heed.

Hon. Mr. Welch: This is a new Parliament.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We are having to research it all over again.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, it’s very difficult to talk when there are so many interjections.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

MOTIONS

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the first four members having precedence in the ballot for private members’ public business shall be authorized to file designated bills or resolutions with the Clerk of the House on or before Thursday, September 1, and the Clerk is authorized to print and distribute these bills as zero-zero bills to all recipients of bills. The designated bills shall be introduced on the first day after the summer recess in the regular way by the members concerned and shall be ordered for debate, notwithstanding the provisions of sessional order 36.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Welch moved first reading of Bill 47,

An Act to amend The Legislative Assembly Act.

Motion agreed to.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY RETIREMENT ALLOWANCES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Welch moved first reading of Bill 48,

An Act to amend The Legislative Retirement Allowances Act, 1973.

Motion agreed to.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McKeough moved first reading of Bill 49,

An Act respecting Municipal Elections.

Motion agreed to.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

Mr. Lawlor moved first reading of Bill 50,

An Act to provide for Freedom of Information.

Motion agreed to.

CLASS ACTIONS ACT

Mr. Lawlor moved first reading of Bill 51,

An Act to provide for Class Actions.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide a statutory procedure whereby one or more persons may sue a defendant in the form of a class action. The bill is designed to achieve this purpose by permitting a person who wishes to sue on behalf of a class to apply for a court order authorizing the class action. Once the order is obtained, the action proceeds as a class action and the final judgement fines all members of the class, except those who have been excluded, as well as the parties to the action.

[3:30]

OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY ACT

Mr. Lawlor moved first reading of Bill 52,

An Act respecting Occupiers’ Liability.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Lawlor: The bill replaces the common law as to an occupier’s duty of care, replacing the common law distinctions between duties to invitees, licensees, trespassers and child trespassers, with one common duty of care applied to the circumstances of each case. The bill is in the form recommended by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada.

CONSUMER PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. B. Newman moved first reading of Bill 53,

An Act to amend The Consumer Protection Act.

Motion agreed to.

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

FAMILY BENEFITS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Martel moved first reading of Bill 54,

An Act to amend The Family Benefits Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Martel: The purpose of the amendment is to remove any reference to the sex of the parent, thereby enabling either the mother or the father of the child to be eligible for benefits.

Mr. Speaker: Just before the orders of the day, I would announce to the House that I am today tabling copies of the allowances paid to members for accommodation and travel, legislative office expenses and constituency office expenses for the fiscal year 1976-77.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FARM PRODUCTS PAYMENTS ACT

Hon. W. Newman moved second reading of Bill 45,

An Act to amend The Farm Products Payments Act.

Mr. Riddell: Needless to say, this bill is long overdue, in light of the fact that there have been a number of bankruptcies in the processing industry over the last 10 years which have led to tremendous financial losses to the farmers.

To be more specific, the livestock and poultry producers, as well as the community sales barns, have lost $425,000 over the last 10 years. Fruit and vegetable growers have lost $770,000, and the dairy producers have lost in the neighbourhood of $155,000. So really it is time that this government did something about protecting the farmers against the risk of the marketplace.

This bill arises out of the financial protection task force report. As the Minister of Agriculture and Food has stated, it will make it possible for farm commodity groups to set up producer and buyer commodity groups to protect the producers from financial loss in the case of bankruptcies in the agricultural industry.

We recognize the Act as being permissive legislation enabling the government to act by regulation. This Act itself will not provide the financial protection, and again it must be done by regulation.

I repeat that it is inexcusable that the government has delayed for so long in bringing this legislation forward. I think there is no question that a farmer has the right to expect full payment for the products of his labour. But in the past there have been innumerable instances where this has not been the case. The financial protection task force report details these losses and states that losses to Ontario farmers attributed to bankruptcies in the last 10 years have totalled $1.35 million.

I’m happy to see that the minister has finally seen fit to bring in legislation to ensure that farmers in this province are protected in these instances. But it’s rather too bad that we have to deal with important pieces of legislation in such haste. The bill was introduced yesterday. We’re giving it second reading today. I personally feel that we must deal with it before this session of the Legislature recesses -- for very obvious reasons. But certainly the farm organizations have not had an opportunity to peruse the bill and give us the benefit of any comments which they wish to make on it.

Farmers must often operate on a principle of trust in the sale of their products. It is often very difficult for a farmer to evaluate a buyer’s ability to pay. This legislation can go far in eliminating this risk, but as I have stated it is only enabling legislation and I would hope that the regulations pertaining to it are introduced quickly. I believe the two major priorities which are both contained in the enabling legislation and which require immediate action are a requirement for prompt payment and the licensing of processors who purchase farm products.

As the task force report points out, the longer the period between the transfer of ownership and transfer of funds, the greater the risk of financial default. I would agree that the period of payment would vary with the commodity, but there are very few areas, as the task force report points out, where the period cannot be reduced for the purpose of improving financial security for farmers without imposing any undue hardship on buyers.

We support the concept of this legislation, which can go far in helping to protect our farmers from undue losses. But we can only regret that it has taken this government so long in bringing this type of legislation forward.

I did appreciate the opportunity to discuss this bill with the minister early this morning. My colleague from York South (Mr. MacDonald) and I were invited to the minister’s office to talk it over with the legal counsel there and the minister. The meeting was at 8:30 this morning. That’s typical of the early hour that we farmers manage to get started --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Eight-thirty? You think that’s early?

Mr. Renwick: I have three hours’ work in by that time.

Mr. Riddell: I guess I can include the member for York South in that as well.

Mr. MacDonald: The urban farmer was on time. The rural farmer was late.

Mr. Riddell: But since talking to the minister I did have occasion to speak to the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and from the vague knowledge that he had about the bill and from my explanation of it, he said that certainly as far as he is concerned the federation supports the concept of the bill, recognizing of course that it is enabling legislation. He did indicate that he would have liked to have received more specific information on it but realized that each commodity group would be different, that is pertaining to crop payment times, and so on.

Some of the questions he had in his mind concerned levels at which commodities are to be covered. The minister indicated this morning in our discussions with him that he was going to pretty well leave that to the different commodity groups. I believe he stated he wouldn’t like to see the level exceed 80 per cent

In my opinion, and I believe Mr. Hannan agrees with me, we should endeavour to get a commitment that would even reach the 90 per cent level; I don’t think 90 per cent is unrealistic. I know what the minister’s thinking is. He feels we might run into some slipshod businesses if we were to guarantee too high a level. I would like to know what his comment is on 90 per cent coverage.

Section 5(4) of The Farm Products Payments Act states that a board may pay into the consolidated revenue funds any surplus moneys in its fund that are not necessary for the current requirements of the board. My question in this connection always has been why should the funds go back into the consolidated revenue fund? Why not leave these funds in the commodity fund? This would then enable us to reduce the premiums the producers or the processors would have to pay.

Once again, I simply want to reiterate that we support this legislation. I hope we will go forward with the regulations in due haste, in light of recent events and the financial difficulties some of the processors and packing plants are facing today.

Mr. MacDonald: Last week I asked the minister a question as to whether or not he was contemplating bringing in legislation to provide farmers with the guarantee that they weren’t going to suffer losses through the bankruptcy of those to whom they had sold their product. He indicated that that was in the mill, so to speak, and he hoped to have it introduced before this session was over. Obviously, therefore, I welcome this legislation.

Indeed I not only welcome it but with a degree of concern I urge that the House give it passage immediately, because quite frankly I think we would be neglecting our duty if we didn’t pass this bill and have it in effect before we leave for a summer recess.

There is one small packing house or processor that has gone bankrupt in very recent days, fortunately, I am informed, with no losses to the farmers. There is another one that is allegedly in difficulties. That kind of situation is surely enough of a warning that we move before a few more horses escape from the barn, so to speak. I welcome the introduction of the bill and on behalf of the New Democratic Party I indicate to the minister that we will be willing to support it.

The principle of the bill is a fairly straightforward one. It provides enabling legislation for each commodity group to move in and, in conjunction with the buyers of that commodity, provide the necessary moneys for establishing a fund. The government is going to provide seed moneys of up to $25,000, depending on the size of the commodity sales, in order to get this kind of process in operation as quickly as possible.

One of the basic moves that makes all of this effective, in the view of the agricultural community, is that the government is going to license dealers, license those who are involved in this process, and therefore will have some control over the situation. If some individual involved is not living up to the Act, there is a very simple way of coping with the situation; he just becomes unlicensed, loses his licence and therefore you have protected the farmer from any further operations by a person whose financial security is in question.

[3:45]

There is one aspect of the bill, Mr. Speaker, that in general terms concerns me. That is that generally speaking I am not in favour of bills that resort so widely, so extensively, to the use of regulations. However, in this instance I think it is perhaps much more justified than might normally be the case. Here once again we face a well known fact in the agricultural community; that is that you have such a fantastic diversity, not only in the number of products that are going to be marketed but in the condition in relation to each one of those products.

Therefore, the only way in which one can cope effectively and realistically with those differing conditions is through regulations that will make it possible for each one of the commodity groups with supervision by the government through the Act, to cope with those varying situations.

As I’ve indicated, the government is going to be putting in seed money up to $25,000 to get each one of these funds in operation, but the remainder of the moneys are going to be raised through a fee which will be levied on the producer and on the buyer of the product. In the first instance, the decision with regard to this, as well as to many other things, is going to be left to negotiations between the commodity group and others with whom they are going to be dealing.

There is always the possibility that the packing houses, for example, are going to object to the levying of any fee, as happened in years gone by when a comparable kind of approach was made in the milk industry. The Act therefore gives the government the residual power to fix a fee if there is not an agreement voluntarily entered into between the sellers and the buyers. That, I think, is necessary, because obviously there may be circumstances in which the negotiations will go on so long as to frustrate the whole objective of the Act.

I just want to add a word about the limits of liability that the hon. member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) referred to. That is, once again, going to be spelled out in the regulations. The amendment here is an amendment to

section 8 of the original Act, and

section 8 deals with regulations. It gives the minister power for, to quote it exactly, “limiting the amounts that may be paid out of a fund to any producer or class thereof, or respecting any dealer or class thereof.”

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, if the minister has some indication as to what the limits are going to be, that it is only fair that that should be indicated publicly; either in a statement in the House, or perhaps even more preferably in the regulations. There may be varying levels in some instances in which some commodities would want a higher level than another. They are going to negotiate and they have the right to make that negotiation, but it seems to me that it is only, well, common sense if I may put it that bluntly, to indicate something about the parameters the minister is willing to tolerate.

After all, it would be rather foolish to permit negotiations in the acceptance of a figure and then have the minister, after the event, intervene and in effect indicate his displeasure and rescind or overrule what has been done.

On the prompt payment aspect of it I was interested, in speaking to a number of farm groups, and particularly having the benefit of a recent visit from the Cattlemen’s Association, to learn from them that they felt that licensing was the first step that was required and prompt payment the next step. In many instances these steps would meet the greater part of the problem. Once again, prompt payment is going to be a matter subject to regulation by each of the individual funds set up by commodity groups, because of the fact that in some instances “prompt” has a different definition.

The Cattlemen’s Association, for instance, when they were meeting with us, defined “prompt” payment as being within 48 hours, which limits the time in which a farmer would possibly be losing the value of the cattle they had sold. In other instances, for example dealing with tender fruit, “prompt” payment would have a far different definition because the farmer is not interested, and hasn’t operated on the basis of seeking a payment within, say a 48- hour period. But once again, it seems to me that “prompt” payment tied in with the licensing is getting at much of the problem.

The fund is lust to catch the residue of other failures that may have emerged.

One could go on, I suppose, at considerable length, talking about principles that flow from the many details in this bill. I’m not going to do so this afternoon because I think no particular purpose is going to be served. The food producers of the province of Ontario have lived with many hazards, both in the production and the marketing of their food. I would join with the hon. member for Huron-Middlesex in saying that it’s a little overdue, but welcome nonetheless, that this hazard is going to be eliminated.

At least when the food producer has sold his product and sold it in good faith he is not going to face the prospect of not getting the money he's entitled to because of the bankruptcy of the firm to which he has sold that product.

Mr. Gaunt: I want to make a few brief comments with respect to this bill. I along with the other two members who have spoken, certainly endorse wholeheartedly the principle of the bill. I think that it’s long overdue, and it’s certainly a welcome feature of this particular legislative session that the minister has seen fit to bring it in at this time, albeit right at the end of the session.

During the election campaign which we recently endured, I had occasion in two instances to talk about the need for such legislation, and I did so against the background of having undergone and suffered with a number of producers who were hurt very severely when Essex Packers defaulted and went into receivership. We had some farmers in our area who were hurt badly. One in particular, I believe ultimately went into bankruptcy because of it. He suffered a severe loss, something in the neighbourhood of $20,000, which was really the straw that broke the camel’s back.

When we were in discussion on one occasion -- this was at an all-candidates meeting -- the matter of prompt payment arose. We had a discussion at that time on how

an Act would work with respect to prompt payment. Under the conditions as set out in this legislation -- I believe we were talking about beef -- the Ontario Cattlemen’s Association would operate the fund, and the regulations the minister would draw up would pertain to the marketing of beef and prompt payment with respect to beef.

The point I want to make is: If prompt payment is required on the part of a packing house where a farmer sells cattle directly to the plant, then to be fair the prompt payment would also have to be a requirement of the legislation insofar as the chain store is concerned -- the chain store, to the packing plant, to the farmer. Unless that requirement is built into the legislation there’s a possibility that it would put packing firms in a very difficult position, because they are not in a position to require prompt payment from the chain store which buys from the packing plant.

If the packing plant has to pay the farmer within 48 hours, as the Ontario Cattlemen’s Association has recommended -- or in the case of a weekend the following working day. I believe; if the cattle were shipped on the Friday then payment would be required the following Monday -- if that is the case with the packing firm, is there going to be any regulation having to do with prompt payment by the chain store which happens to buy that meat from the packing plant?

If not, then I suggest to the minister that this legislation will effectively cut out direct sales from the farmer to the packing plant, because the packing plant really won’t want to take the chance of operating under the requirement to pay the farmer within the 48 hours and then assume the risk of not being paid by the buyer of their meat for perhaps two, three or four weeks.

Perhaps the ministry has given some thought to that and maybe the regulations will cover that problem. I raise it with the minister because I haven’t had any indication that that problem would be dealt with and I wonder if any thought has been given to it.

In

summary, I certainly support wholeheartedly the principles of the bill in the terms outlined by my colleague from Huron-Middlesex and my friend from York South. I endorse it. I support it wholeheartedly and it’s just unfortunate we didn’t have it much sooner.

Hon. W. Newman: I appreciate the comments from my friends across the way, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to point out that as a result of the problems we ran into way back with Essex Packers, and as a result of being unable at that point in time to get any amendments to The Bank Act, I set up a financial protection task force to look into ways and means of trying to protect the producers from bankruptcy.

Even though only $70 in every $1 million of sales was lost over the last 10 years, and that may not sound like a lot of money, it severely hurt the individuals who were actually affected, which was pointed out by the member for Huron-Bruce, who said that an individual could be hurt very severely.

As a result of that task force, which was set up not too long ago, and as a result of their recommendations, we have this legislation before us today. As for the regulations we were talking about, I think it is very important to leave it open for the various commodity groups we have, because each commodity group probably will want to operate on a little different basis as far as the time-frame for prompt payment is concerned.

The hon. member asked me at what level the payout should be. I would like to indicate that I would want to consult with each commodity group as to what the level of payout should be. It could vary from commodity to commodity, but I would think it could be between 65 per cent and 90 per cent depending on the commodity. I have a lot of respect for our commodity groups; they are self-elected people in their own area of interest, so they have a pretty good idea of how they feel it should work. We want to leave that open to negotiation.

I talked to the president of the Federation of Agriculture as late as 1:50 p.m. today -- and I do apologize for being a little late in getting this bill in. It is a matter that has to go through the due process, and I am very thankful I was able to get it brought in. I also appreciate the co-operation of the other two parties in letting me bring this forward, because I think it’s important that we proceed with our negotiations with the various commodity groups now so we can get the regulations in place.

One of the things the hon. member talked about was prompt payment as well as licensing; and, yes, I met with the Ontario Cattlemen’s Association last week also, I also think that a fund should be built up in each commodity group. As the hon. member knows, of course, the fund can build up to a certain level and, when it reaches that desired level, then there can no longer be any payments by the producers or by the processors.

There were one or two questions that were brought up by the member for Huron-Middlesex; I think I’ve covered them. The level of coverage, as I have said, would be somewhere between 65 per cent and 90 per cent, depending on the commodity.

[4:00]

As far as the consolidated revenue fund is concerned, which he mentioned we would administer, as he well knows, the fund for the various commodity groups; and yes, the money would be in the consolidated revenue fund, but I believe the consolidated revenue fund would be paying interest on that particular fund.

The member for York South brought up, basically, some of the same ideas. On the $25,000 seed money; yes, this is to encourage the commodity boards to get into it.

One thing that hasn’t been mentioned, there is an interest-free loan provision in this bill, that until the necessary funds are built up to the acceptable levels by the commodity boards there would be loans made available from the consolidated revenue fund of up to $250,000 to deal with any particular bankruptcy that may occur before the funds are built up.

The member for Huron-Bruce brought up another situation which we have considered but is not in this bill. That is the prompt payment, as he says from the chain store back to the packing plants. This bill is designed to protect the producers of the province. When we get into that next sphere, we’re also into the area of responsibility of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, and in order to get this bill under way, certainly that would not come under my jurisdiction. This bill is primarily set up to deal with the producers in this province.

I’m hopeful that we can move forward fairly quickly with the regulations of the various groups once we can get this bill passed, because I think it’s very important. I don’t apologize for the delay. I think since I’ve been in the ministry we’ve set up this task force and we have brought in the report. We’ve tried repeatedly for many years to get The Bank Act changed to make farmers primary creditors and, to this point in time we have been unable to do that; thus we’re bringing forward this legislation which is a vehicle to build on with regulations for the various commodity groups.

I do appreciate the members’ feeling on the bill, Mr. Speaker. I think it’s a good bill, and hopefully we can get it sorted out before we leave here.

Mr. Sargent: I wonder if the minister would answer a question? I’m sorry I was late getting back in.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Would you make the question very brief?

Mr. Sargent: I have heard three of my colleagues speak on this. In view of the fact that Essex Packers had a $23,000 cheque for a young chap which he never collected -- they forced him into bankruptcy and he’s lost everything -- is there any way the minister can make this reciprocal? Or retroactive, I’m sorry.

Hon. W. Newman: No, it cannot be made retroactive. This bill will take effect from the day it receives royal assent. Nobody is more concerned about some of those producers who took a beating. I know, I have a list of them. Once we get this regulation in place, this sort of thing will not happen.

Mr. Sargent: May I have a supplementary, again?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I’m sorry, no. The motion is for second reading of Bill 45. Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Shall this bill be ordered for third reading?

Agreed.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading on motion: Bill 45,

An Act to amend The Farm Products Payments Act.

MINISTRY OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS ACT (CONTINUED)

Resumption of the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 21,

An Act to establish the Ministry of Northern Affairs.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I believe the member for Nickel Belt was prepared with his remarks.

Mr. Laughren: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall, with a great deal of self-discipline, restrain myself in both the length of time --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Oh don’t do that, don’t disappoint me.

Mr. Laughren: -- and the heat of my arguments.

I thought that the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) made a good point in his remarks when he talked about the introduction of this bill being a signal that the government had failed in so many other areas in northern Ontario, because as I read through the bill I don’t see a single thing in this bill that could not be done by existing ministries. That is why we, in this caucus, looked long and hard at the bill, and even had some spirited discussions about this bill to establish a Ministry of Northern Affairs.

We don’t make these decisions lightly, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the minister realizes that. We had to be very careful that this bill would not be a window-dressing bill and used as an election ploy in the recent provincial election.

Mr. Sargent: They are going to make him Premier of Northern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We will accept responsibility.

Mr. Laughren: And yes, you certainly will accept responsibility.

An hon. member: You should.

Mr. Laughren: The minister will, that’s correct. He will accept responsibility for what he continues not to do in northern Ontario. He will have no options over that.

I want to tell you something, Mr. Speaker. Last night during the debate the minister- elect of northern affairs continually referred to the seats the government had gained in northern Ontario. I want to tell you that if the minister thinks those victories were a blanket endorsation of government policy in northern Ontario, he is going to have a rude awakening in the months and the years to come. Because, Mr. Speaker, this bill is the kind of thing that raises the expectations of people in northern Ontario and when the minister doesn’t meet those expectations, which he has caused to rise, then he is going to be in real trouble in northern Ontario, even more than he is at the present time.

An hon. member: Right on.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Thirty-four years, boy.

Mr. Laughren: And I would remind the minister that the proportion of seats that the government holds in the north is nothing that it should be proud of as the government of this province.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You would love to have a majority.

Mr. Laughren: Well, we would love to have a majority government --

Mr. Martel: You would love to have a majority too, Leo.

Mr. Laughren: You would too.

Mr. Mackenzie: As a matter of fact, that’s the only reason you called the election and it didn’t work.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Nice try.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address myself to a couple of possibilities that this bill offers to the Minister of Northern Affairs and I hope that he will listen carefully.

I think there are two areas in which we in northern Ontario feel there are very serious problems. One is the provision or delivery of services to people; the other is economic development. The two are related. We make a serious mistake -- and I think this is where the government has failed in the past; they have tended to regard the two as two separate worlds and surely there’s the relationship, or at least should be, between economic development and the provision or delivery of services to people.

In the delivery of services, once again we have two different kinds of problems. One is delivery of services in the established communities -- such as Sudbury, or North Bay, or Thunder Bay, or Sault Ste. Marie and so forth -- and you have the small unorganized communities in northern Ontario.

When we talk about the builtup areas like Sudbury, it’s an indication that something is wrong when we have a region as rich in resources as the Sudbury region with a $30 million backlog in services. This is services to existing communities. I am not talking about laying sewer and water lines in the ground in the York-Durham region the way they have done, but to established communities.

The Minister of Northern Affairs simply must address himself to that problem. We have today in the Sudbury area people who in the wintertime melt snow in order to have water to drink and to wash with and in the summertime haul water in from a fire hydrant. It is a pretty sad commentary that in established communities in northern Ontario, in communities as rich as the regional municipality of Sudbury -- and that’s within the regional municipality of Sudbury -- we have a $30 million backlog of services and at the same time $130 million debt that has been assumed by the region.

The minister is simply going to have to investigate what it is that allowed that to happen in an area that’s created so much wealth for the people of Ontario, all over Ontario. Also he should talk to the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) and to the Minister of Revenue (Mrs. Scrivener) about assessment policies, because what’s happening in places like Sudbury, in a resource-based community with mining installations within its borders, is that there’s very little relationship between capital investment in the community and assessment revenues.

That has simply got to change. We can no longer have, as we have had in the last few years, over $1 billion of assessment come into the Sudbury area in about a five-year period, and yet have the debt increasing while that’s happening so there's almost an inverse relationship between capital investment and the assessment that is available to the municipality for taxing purposes.

One reason for that is the way the mining industry is taxed so that there is very little left in the form of buildings that are of substantial value that can be taxed. The minister simply has to convince his cabinet colleagues that there are other ways of assessing the mining industry. They have done it other ways in British Columbia, in Manitoba and in Alberta. It can be done here, but it is going to take a great deal of pressure from the Minister of Northern Affairs.

The Treasurer has been told this and the Minister of Revenue has been told this many times. International Nickel in the Sudbury area has said let us pay more of our revenues to the local area. I hope the minister will lean on his colleagues to see if that can be accomplished.

On the whole question of jobs in northern Ontario, at this time, in the latest figures I saw, northeastern Ontario had the highest unemployment rate of any region in Ontario. This is an area that is very rich in resources. The northeastern

part is the resource heart of all of Ontario, and here we have a very unacceptable unemployment level. We don’t have to look very far to see that.

We know that productivity in both the mining and the lumbering industries has increased substantially, the minister knows this. The tons of ore produced per employee has gone up dramatically in the last 10 years by making the industry more capital intensive. The same applies to the lumbering industry. While there is nothing wrong with making an industry capital intensive, at the same time we must develop some kind of economic policy that will provide alternative employment for those people; and that’s not happening now.

The minister and his colleagues have simply done nothing to encourage the further processing of our resources in the north. As a matter of fact, this is what bothers me so much. This is the same minister who in December, 1975, granted Falconbridge an indefinite extension of their right to ship nickel to Norway for further processing and, as though to compound the injury, to write off those processing costs against their Ontario operations.

Mr. Warner: Absolutely shameful.

Mr. Laughren: That’s still going on. Falconbridge is not a penurious little struggling local enterprise. It is part of a large multinational conglomerate. They have been in the Sudbury basin for 45 years and have had every opportunity to build a refinery and process nickel there. The government makes the problem worse. This is what is bothering me. We simply have to look to the minister to turn those policies around. We are bothered because they were his policies to start with. He is going to have to admit he was wrong and change some of those policies. I don’t know if he is big enough to do that, quite frankly.

Mr. Martel: And they expand in Norway.

Mr. Laughren: Yes, that’s correct. They expand their refinery in Norway.

Mr. Warner: Cleanse your soul by resigning. It will make you feel better.

Mr. Laughren: We are not dealing in a closed economy any more. The multinational resources corporations wheel and deal all around the world. If they can hold up the minister for ransom, they will do it. We simply must have the resolve collectively to resist that. We believe it can be done.

Just before I leave that, there is no better example of what this government allows to happen than what happened in the riding of Timiskaming, in the small town of Matachewan, when the United Asbestos plant closed. When I hear this minister, along with the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot), blaming the New Democratic Party for closing the United Asbestos mine, I think that politics has reached a new and lower level.

That’s a shabby kind of politics. The member for Timiskaming promised during the campaign that he would see that that mine was reopened. When I asked the Premier today that very question, he avoided it entirely, because you know and I know he has no intentions of opening that mine.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The local people spoke on June 9.

Mr. Laughren: Don’t give me that. We are talking about the principle of telling the truth. That’s what we are talking about, and you are not telling it when you imply to the people that