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

November 9, 1978

31st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L115 - Thu 9 Nov 1978 / Jeu 9 nov 1978

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

NORDAIR TAKEOVER

BRIDGE SAFETY

CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

INSPECTION REPORTS

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH RECORDS

AUTO PACT

BEEF PRICES

THREAT TO ELDORADO EMPLOYEE

MOUNTAIN VIEW SCHOOL

WASTE DISPOSAL

DISPOSAL OF CONTAMINATED TRANSFORMERS

CFL RULE

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION

VISITORS

INCO LEASE

SUDBURY LIQUOR STORE

NURSE PRACTITIONERS

LEARNING-DISABLED CHILDREN

OTTAWA HOSPITAL FACILITIES

SALE OF LIQUOR ON BUSES AND TRAINS

WASTE DISPOSAL

REPORTS

STANDING PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

STANDING SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

STANDING GENERAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE

MOTION

SITTING OF HOUSE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF NEPEAN ACT

CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AMENDMENT ACT

ROYAL HOTEL (PICTON) LIMITED ACT

CITY OF WINDSOR ACT

CITY OF WINDSOR ACT

REGIS COLLEGE ACT

FIVE-O TAXI LIMITED ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

LEGISLATIVE BUILDING

REDIRECTION OF BILL 142

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

LIFELINE ACT

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT ACT

LIFELINE ACT

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT ACT

ROYAL ASSENT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

NORDAIR TAKEOVER

Hon. Mr. Snow: This afternoon I would like to make a brief statement in the House about an issue that has been discussed in this House before. I am referring to the decision of the CTC to approve Air Canada’s takeover of Nordair. As members of this House are aware, the Ontario government opposed that decision for reasons I have outlined in other statements and petitioned the federal government to overturn that decision.

On Monday Mr. Lang, Minister of Transport, issued a statement outlining the federal government’s response to our petition. What I’d like to do right now is to inform the members very quickly on the gist of that statement and my ministry’s reaction to it.

What Mr. Lang has said, as I understand it, is that Air Canada will be permitted to complete the purchase of Nordair shares, but must immediately transfer those shares to the federal government to be sold later to the private sector. While Ontario would have preferred to have the ownership of Nordair transferred directly to the private sector, this arrangement does appear to be an attempt to meet Ontario’s concerns about keeping Nordair separate and independent of both Air Canada and the federal government.

In reviewing Mr. Lang’s statement, we have made particular note of the fact that Mr. Lang has committed the government to the objective of having Nordair back in private hands within 12 months. This is an objective we hope can be accomplished in an even shorter period of time so that stability can be restored to this segment of the air-carrier industry.

Mr. Foulds: You didn’t succeed with Minaki very well.

Hon. Mr. Snow: We will be following developments in this area with a great deal of interest to ensure that Ottawa lives up to this commitment.

Of substantial concern to Ontario too is Mr. Lang’s stated intention to pursue discussions with principal, non-mainline carriers in the eastern half of Canada to develop a restructured regional air-carrier system. I’d like to say at this time that we expect to be consulted by the federal government when these discussions begin. In that way we may ensure that the best possible level of service will be provided to the Ontario travelling public by a regional air carrier based in this province.

Mr. Peterson: Tell us about the bridges.

BRIDGE SAFETY

Hon. Mr. Snow: While I am on my feet, I would like to table in the Legislature certain documents which are part of what was requested, I believe, by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) on Tuesday. This parcel includes two copies of the computerized inventory prepared by my ministry from the reports on municipal bridges which have been submitted to us.

In addition to the two computerized inventories, there are 10 randomly selected municipal bridge reports. There are a further 501 reports which --

Mr. Martel: Why didn’t you bring them all?

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- I have not tabled because, as I say, I have tabled 10 random samples.

Mr. Foulds: We will cross that bridge when we get to it.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I would say that if any member is interested in the report of any particular municipality in his riding, then he could either get a copy of the report from the municipality that prepared the report or we would be pleased to arrange to get the information on that municipality.

An hon. member: I would cross any bridge in this province, if the minister went ahead of me on it.

CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Hon. Mr. McCague: Later this afternoon I shall be introducing a bill to amend the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act. In introducing this bill, the government has two objectives in mind. The first is to ensure that residents of provincially operated facilities are given the protection they need and deserve. The second is to reassure the public in general and the relatives of these residents in particular that such protection will be provided.

In 1972, when it was decided to formalize collective bargaining procedures for crown employees, the government’s philosophy was that, where feasible, these procedures should parallel those that were available to employees in the private sector. With this philosophy in mind, the grievance board, established under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, was given the authority to modify a penalty imposed by the employer, if the board determined that the penalty was excessive.

The bill being proposed would not remove authority to substitute a penalty, but would limit the options available if, on the evidence before it, the board decided that the griever should be returned to employment. On the passage of this bill the board could return an employee to employment, but not to a position involving direct responsibility for or an opportunity for contact with residents in the facility.

The grievance settlement board and the other tribunals appointed under this act have played an important and very difficult role in the ongoing relations between the government and its employees, and the government appreciates the manner in which the members of these boards and tribunals are performing their function.

In view of our stated objectives which we feel should be reflected in legislation, I ask for the support of all members in the passage of this act.

INSPECTION REPORTS

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege to say that I believe the member for Don Mills, the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell), is in contempt of this Legislature and I believe that the matter to which I am about to refer should be referred in turn to the procedural affairs committee.

On August 4 of this year the member for Don Mills made a public statement on the CRC radio program Metro Morning. He said: “When I send a memo to the inspection branch asking for a report, the member will get exactly the same report as I get. I don’t know what Mr. Warner is complaining about. He’s had a couple.”

I then tabled a question here in the House on October 23 asking for certain inspection reports, fully expecting the minister to comply with his public statement. The written answer which I received on November 6 stated in part: “ ... he should be aware that it is not the policy of the inspection branch of my ministry to make inspection reports available to the public.”

I have consulted Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice, in particular the

section on contempt in general, which is page 136; the basic principle on page 142, namely, “that the House may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt”; and finally on page 172, “Where the matter of complaint is a charge alleged to have been made by one member against another in a speech outside the House, it is usual, if the member admits the correctness of the report and states that he is in a position to prove the charge and is willing to attempt to do so, to give him an opportunity of establishing his charge and with this object to refer the matter to a committee.” This is what I would like to do.

I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, in a very serious matter, a matter which disturbs me greatly. I would ask that you could rule on it at some point and send it to the procedural affairs committee.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I would welcome your making such a ruling because perhaps more than some members opposite I take the question of personal reputation a little bit more seriously.

Mr. Deans: That wasn’t a good start.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: If the member would examine again what he himself has just said today, I would point out that the answer which was tabled was an extremely lengthy answer, in which we tried to be as detailed as possible. It was totally consistent with that which I had to say on the Metro Morning show on August 4. The actual reports in the files are not released but the information which I got from the staff is exactly what was imparted to the honourable member.

Ms. Gigantes: Be careful.

Mr. Nixon: The Speaker is thinking.

Mr. Speaker: I will reflect upon it and get back to the House on it at a later time.

[2:15]

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH RECORDS

Mr. S. Smith: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Health.

Accepting that police officers in investigating cases of billing fraud need to have access to certain pertinent records under certain conditions, how can it be that as late as March of this year -- four months after the furore in this House; after the report from the Attorney General; after the setting up of the Krever commission and everything else that he knows very well happened here, that there were and had been since 1972 Ontario Provincial Police officers with unrestricted access to all the files of the Ontario Health Insurance Plan, with no court order, no specific warrants, no logging, no lists, no record of identification of the officers, absolutely nothing -- how could it happen that there were officers sitting there with unrestricted access all the while this discussion was going on, and even continuing months after the Krever inquiry was set up, until it was accidentally stumbled upon by the commission?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know that “accidentally” is the right word, but let me say that I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would agree that we should follow up on any cases of fraud. Going back to the beginnings of OHIP, which apparently is when this originated, it was felt that we should co-operate with the police. The purpose of the commission, of course, has been to look at all aspects of our internal operations. If the honourable member remembers the terms of reference, they were to look at particular incidents as well as at all of our systems. So I don’t know that I would call it accidental.

Frankly, as was indicated at the commission, neither the deputy minister, who was not in the ministry at the time this began, nor myself was aware of it until this examination. There are, I know, a number more witnesses to be called at the Krever commission. I think we should leave it for the commissioner to determine in his mind whether he will advise as to whether it is improper or not that the police should be on the premises and, if so, in what circumstances. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would not want us to drop our activities in pursuing cases that might be considered to be fraudulent.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, and following directly on the minister’s response that he doesn’t like the use of the word “accidental”: Is he aware that the only way this came to life was that the Krever commission people were visiting the premises simply to get an idea of the layout when somebody asked, “What’s behind that door?” and was told, “That’s where our policemen sit”?

Is the minister also aware that, in addition to Mr. Backley, the deputy minister who didn’t know about this because he has only been in that position for a little while, the deputy minister at the time, Mr. Martin, also didn’t know about this in 1972, when this practice was set up? We called him today to check on that.

Is the minister saying that there is some doubt in his mind concerning the desirability of having policemen with unrestricted access, with no log kept of what charts they have taken out, no indication of why they are looking for certain types of charts, no judge’s order, and not even the names of the policemen kept on file? If he is saying that, and if it is that desirable, why are no policemen now allowed to look at anything at OHIP as a result of the latest decision made on those premises?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Going back and putting this into the longer-term perspective, one of the things that keeps recurring in this commission, which I may say is turning out to be a milestone --

Mr. S. Smith: It is a very interesting one.

Mr. Peterson: And a millstone.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, certainly not that. When the government learned of these situations a year ago, we were determined that, rather than just dealing with one or two or three situations, we would get to the bottom of everything so that there would be no doubt.

Mr. Roy: Yes, we pushed you into that; you showed no early enthusiasm.

Mr. Foulds: Isn’t that in contrast to the way the federal Liberals act in the same situation?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It seems to me that what keeps coming up is the fact that expectations and attitudes about police and about records which had formed the basis of longstanding practices, not just in government but in various industries relating to one another and to the public, have changed. As a result, there obviously will have to be changes in systems. There already have been a number of changes in the last year; we went through a few earlier this week, and they have been dealt with from time to time.

At the time this was drawn to our attention, we agreed with the counsel to the commission that we would not take any precipitate action -- he didn’t want things to be turned upside down overnight -- until the commission had a chance to finish its investigation, which I’m told will be just a few more months.

In the meantime, we have been a lot tighter with information; it may turn out that we have been tighter than necessary. I have heard from many of you opposite and some of my friends behind me, that we have perhaps been too tight with information to members.

Several of the members have written to me suggesting that we are taking too literal an

interpretation of

section 44 with respect to letters which they write to me on behalf of constituents seeking information from the OHIP files. I send them a brief acknowledgement and then I write to their constituent mentioning that the member had written to me, but giving the constituent the information.

If we have erred since this problem developed, it may well be that we have erred on being too cautious, but I would sooner do it that way until all the commission’s hearings are completed, we have their conclusions and we have the time to consider them and make the necessary changes in statutes, regulations, practices, or whatever.

Mr. Breaugh: A supplementary: I would like to ask the minister who specifically authorized that disclosure at that time. Subsequent to that, has he had any criminal investigations of any sort to attempt to ascertain whether or not the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) would proceed with criminal charges against members of his ministry or individual members of hospital staffs?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I’m sorry, the member said “that disclosure.” Is he thinking of a particular incident or this situation?

To the best of my knowledge, there is more evidence to be heard as to how it developed and what activities have actually gone on with the general manager of the plan whose job it is to manage within the act.

Mr. S. Smith: A final supplementary if I may, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: We’ve spent eight minutes on the first question.

Mr. S. Smith: I only asked one supplementary which was relatively brief, with respect.

Mr. Speaker: Both the original question and the supplementary were unusually long.

Mr. S. Smith: I’ll ask a final supplementary, if I may. Can the minister check and tell the House who it was who authorized this policy back in 1972?

Mr. Breaugh: That’s what he just answered.

Mr. Martel: That is one supplementary.

Mr. S. Smith: I apologize if he has just answered that question. I did not understand him to answer the question. I apologize if he did.

Could he explain why after the Krever commission was set up, nobody bothered to tell him that there were two policemen sitting there in the OHIP premises the whole time? Why did no one volunteer this to the Krever inquiry? Why did it have to be discovered in the manner that it was? Doesn’t that concern him about what is going on at OHIP?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I’d have to say, and these individuals will have an opportunity to answer that, that it was because they did not think it was, in fact, a breach. That is the likely response. These people have been working in the plan in one way or another, going back to the OHSC or to the OHSIP days, many of them for many years.

It is unquestionable that certain attitudes and feelings about the police and the need to co-operate, respect for the law or whatever, may have changed over the years. That will mean there will be changes in our procedures and regulations, just as there have been a number in the last year. But I certainly don’t think there has been any criminal intent or anything but intent to uphold what they consider to be the highest of principles -- and one of those principles happens to be respect for the law and co-operation with the law.

AUTO PACT

Mr. S. Smith: A question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism: Given the fact that Ontario would appear to be the biggest loser if the present predictions concerning the auto pact prove to be correct, and given that the American optimistic predictions, which were trying to make it look good for Canada, indicate we will be $10 billion down and the science council’s predictions show us doing even worse than that by 1985, can the minister tell us exactly what he is doing to help the auto parts industry? What is he doing to bring together the automakers to demand that action occur --

Mr. Martel: He’s talking to the federal government.

Mr. S. Smith: -- both between the federal government and the provincial government, by the big three automakers to start procuring a proper proportion of parts in this country, as important as that is to our country and to our province?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: With regard to the figures quoted in the paper today, they are a study and a prediction only.

Mr. S. Smith: That is an optimistic prediction.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, in certain people’s opinion. In certain people’s opinion, that is an optimistic one. All I can say is that I’m not commenting on the validity or otherwise of those figures. We also acknowledge that the situation isn’t good -- there’s no question about that -- and we’re not happy about that.

Secondly, I should point out, so that the thing is in context, that that does fail to take into account the benefits that have flowed to Canada as a result of the auto pact relating to transactions with third countries. In that regard, for the last year in question the benefit flowing to Canada from the auto pact in terms of exports to other countries was something like half a billion dollars. So that somewhat affects those figures substantially in getting a true picture of the effectiveness of the auto pact.

Thirdly, the Leader of the Opposition will be aware that because of all the concern about this, Simon Reisman has been studying the whole question. Apparently, Mr. Homer has on his desk a copy of Mr. Reisman’s report, and certainly the media yesterday had what appeared to be some leaks in regard to what Mr. Reisman will conclude. Obviously, we’re intensely interested in what Mr. Reisman concludes and for Ontario’s part we will be responding as aggressively as possible to his conclusions.

I should say as well that we recognize this problem and in our submissions to Reisman we pointed out the problem specifically with auto parts. We pointed out the need for the federal government to keep in mind that the auto pact was supposed to be a framework for continuing negotiations and discussions in order to permit the appropriate readjustments as time went on.

In our submission to Reisman we also pointed out the importance of a well-defined industrial strategy which would allow some support for the parts and components manufacturing section. We have pressed that point very strongly upon Reisman.

Finally, one of the most important things, which indeed is recognized in the study referred to by the Americans, is the importance of attracting a substantial portion of the $50 billion or $60 billion worth of new plant installations that the auto makers are going to be putting in over the next several years. As I hardly need repeat in this assembly, Ontario understood that several months ago.

That’s why we placed such special emphasis on getting into the Ford situation, getting that Ford plant in and showing the industry that we were determined to get our fair share of all of this important new construction and development that was going to occur over the next little while. I can assure the House we are, in fact, that determined to get our fair share of the developments over the next few years.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of a brief supplementary to that detailed answer, could I ask simply whether the minister has studied the brief by J. J. Shepherd, vice-chairman of the Science Council of Canada, a brief that he submitted to Mr. Reisman? If he has not studied it, will he do so and give us his opinion of it? In particular, will he give us his view of Mr. Shepherd’s opinion that the deficit will be much greater than that predicted in the paper today, rising to $2.4 billion per annum in 1976 dollars by 1985?

Does the minister agree with the conclusions of Mr. Shepherd, in particular the notion that the big three ought to be asked, requested and to some extent forced, if that’s at all possible, to have the division of labour done differently, so that Canada becomes responsible for individual product lines, from design right though to marketing and manufacturing, rather than just bits and pieces of different assemblies?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: There is no question that we have a problem in auto parts, to take one example. However, to be fair, reasonable and rational about the situation, the fact is that there are some reasons why the industry as it is structured doesn’t think it’s feasible, nor do a lot of other people think it’s feasible, to simply say that an automatic fragmentation of the industry into all those different elements would benefit anyone involved in the whole exercise.

[2:30]

I can tell the Leader of the Opposition that whatever Mr. Shepherd and others speculate, I think the key thing to keep in mind is that all of this speculation may well prove to be totally out of whack and have little relevance, depending very much upon where these $50 billion or $60 billion in new plant installations are going to go.

Rather than have the government of this province run around simply saying, “Henny Penny, the sky is falling,” we are concentrating on a comprehensive strategy on several fronts.

Ms. Gigantes: It’s been falling for some time.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Firstly, we want to see what reasonable possibility there is for developing an industrial strategy to deal with the auto-parts question. Secondly, we want to develop a careful strategy to get our share of the new auto plants built in this country. Thirdly -- I pressed this point upon the industry ministers at our meeting in Ottawa on Tuesday of this week -- it is time we spoke up and spoke out as loudly as we could in order --

Mr. Foulds: Are you taking lessons from Jimmy Auld?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- to encourage some responsibility, some acknowledgement, some moral suasion, whatever we could, as strongly as we could put the case, to the auto makers in Canada.

Finally, with regard to whether I will read and respond to Shepherd’s statements, let me say I think the way to best use our time in the House and the way to best respond to the whole thing is to wait for the Reisman report, which I think will be out in the next 10 days or two weeks. At that time I’d be happy to make a statement. I’ve always intended to respond to that in this House --

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister has covered all of the points contained in the question.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It was a very comprehensive question.

At that time I’ll deal with the Shepherd remarks, the American study and the Reisman report.

Mr. Cooke: Supplementary: I’d like to ask the minister if he or the government is considering any further grants to Ford Motor Company to establish the casting plant they are now considering -- for Ontario or Mexico, I believe. If so, is this then the government policy of how to buy themselves out of the auto-pact deficit? Are they considering any further grants? Has Ford made any kind of a request?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I’m not sure if the member is asking us to do what we can to see that a casting plant goes into Windsor --

Mr. Cooke: No, I am not.

Mr. Warner: Just answer the question.

Some hon. members: No more grants.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I take it he is not asking us to do whatever we can to get a foreign casting plant into Windsor.

Mr. Martel: Why don’t you stop grandstanding?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: In any case, I can say --

Mr. Warner: Yes or no?

Mr. Havrot: Let him answer it. Shut up.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- the Ford Motor Company has recognized our government’s interest in doing what we can for the auto industry --

Mr. Warner: Have they made a request?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- and for Windsor especially.

Mr. Warner: Have they made a request?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Therefore they have indeed been in to talk with me about the possibilities.

Mr. McClellan: Hat in hand?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That’s all I can report at this stage. Yes, we are interested in it. We hope they will go ahead. We’re trying to ascertain whether our involvement is crucial to that.

It’s the entire initial exercise over again. Let me make it quite clear: We think it ought to go in. As the government we want to do everything possible to get it put into Windsor.

Mr. Warner: How much money will you give them?

BEEF PRICES

Mr. Martel: To the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: Is the minister now prepared to respond to a question raised by the leader of the New Democratic Party on October 26 with respect to the rapid rise in the retail spread of beef prices in the Toronto area? Specifically, could he indicate whether the trend recorded by the Anti-Inflation Board is confined to the Toronto area, or whether similar increases in the retail spread have occurred in other parts of the province?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, as I told the leader of the New Democratic Party that day, I wanted to have people take a rather exhaustive look at that report. It does deal with Ontario, but indeed it deals with the whole country. If one takes a very cursory look at that report, on the basis of the whole country we’re doing very well here. If one looks in detail, which I think is what the members wanted, to see what would be done, there are some questions that are being raised. My staff is looking at it and I will report back to the House as quickly as possible.

I may say the question to me was about Toronto. Then it became, “Since you are interested in Toronto will you extend your look in Ontario?” That’s what I said “yes” to.

Mr. Martel: In his study of the report, would he try to answer to the Legislature why the rapid increase in the percentage of consumer beef dollars is going to the retailer as opposed to the farmer? Then we might get a handle on just who is ripping us off.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Before I commit myself to anything other than coffee being ripped off -- and I want to make that very clear -- that’s precisely the matter we are looking at.

Mr. Deans: Don’t you want to know who is ripping us off?

Mr. Sargent: The farmers in Grey-Bruce aren’t getting it. Tell us.

Mr. Martel: Might I ask the minister one final supplementary? Despite the fact that the price of hamburger, for example, is now almost $2 --

Mr. Foulds: It was $1.98 yesterday at Loblaws.

Mr. Martel: -- and the fact that federal authorities aren’t prepared to move to do much to improve the situation, has the minister had any discussions with his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman).

Mr. Kerrio: Why don’t you eat Ontario pork?

Mr. Martel: -- to see what steps could be taken to try to encourage the further development of the industry within Ontario, and, if so, could he report to the House?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker, I don’t understand the question.

Mr. Handleman: I don’t think he does either.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Is the member talking about getting more production of beef? Frankly, I have never discussed food supply or beef supply with the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I’ll be very glad to look into it.

THREAT TO ELDORADO EMPLOYEE

Mr. Martel: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Is he aware of the

article in today’s Globe and Mail dealing with an interview with a member of Environment Canada’s official staff? Let me quote: “Brian Timmerman, a public affairs consultant with Environment Canada, said in an interview that the individual, whom he refused to name, was warned not to appear at the hearing into the environmental impact of Eldorado Nuclear Limited’s proposed refinery in nearby Hope township under threat of dismissal.”

Is the minister aware of this threat to a man’s job if he appears before a hearing and, if not; does he intend to look into this matter to see what protection can be afforded employees?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Like the member for Sudbury East, I first became aware of this matter this morning from the paper. I have no further information available at this moment, but I would be delighted to have it looked into.

Mr. Martel: Supplementary: Would the minister agree with me that until that is completed, under no circumstances should any employee employed by any employer be threatened with dismissal from work should he or she choose to oppose some proposal which a company might be in favour of? In other words, in this province can we allow people to be threatened with loss of employment should they make appearances before various judicial bodies or inquiries?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: As a general rule I certainly agree with the member for Sudbury East, but I think each particular situation has to be assessed on its own merits and on the facts of that particular ease, and that is what I have agreed to do in this particular case.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary. Would the minister not agree that as a general principle it perverts the public participation process if an employer feels he has, or does have, the right to threaten an employee from participating in royal commissions, inquiries or environmental assessment hearings?

Mr. Kerrio: New question.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I think I have already expressed my views on that matter. As a general principle I am in agreement with the philosophy stated, but I also have said that each situation has to be assessed on its own merits. I will assess this situation on its own merits.

MOUNTAIN VIEW SCHOOL

Mr. Van Horne: I have a question for the Minister of Education.

Is the minister aware that the Huronia Association for the Mentally Retarded, a group funded by the day nurseries branch of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, is having considerable difficulties in negotiating the continued use of the Mountain View school, a school owned by the Simcoe board of education, and that it has been told in reply to its application for a capital grant that no major capital for the building of new facilities for mentally retarded children and adolescents will be forthcoming, due to the philosophy that all school-aged children should receive training and education within the education system and, secondly, due to the possibility that mandatory special education legislation might be passed in the near future making developmental centres obsolete?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am aware of it, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, the Huronia Association for the Mentally Retarded has some interest in a school which the board of education of Simcoe county was prepared to divest itself of.

I have heard for the first time the reasons which have been given to the association for the mentally retarded in that area, and I think those reasons are relatively valid.

Mr. Van Horne: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Given that there is a very definite need for some mandatory legislation so that we don’t have this buck-passing situation, would the minister be prepared in the interim, until whenever it is planned to bring this legislation to the House, to intercede on behalf of the Huronia Association for the Mentally Retarded? They have been told that the deadline is November 14, and they would like at least until the end of November to try to negotiate the rental or purchase of the Mountain View school.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am sure that the Huronia Association for the Mentally Retarded is aware of the procedure which school boards must follow when they decide they will rid themselves of schools which they feel they no longer need. There is a whole list of groups within the community which must be contacted so that they are made aware that building will be available to them. Once that list has been exhausted and no interest has been shown, the board of education must call public tenders, which are advertised.

This particular school was advertised for quite a long period of time. There was some interest in it, but I gather the interest expressed by the Huronia Association for the Mentally Retarded is very recent; and the board of education must make some decisions.

This has come to my attention, and I shall be pleased to talk to the board of education about it. Certainly I have no legal authority to talk to the association for the mentally retarded or to provide them with assistance in this matter, but I shall be pleased to talk to that board.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment.

I welcome the good news in the minister’s statement on Tuesday that he has introduced a long-overdue waste classification system and is responding to the many demands for improving the waybill system.

Mr. Kerrio: Statements by the opposition.

Ms. Bryden: But I would like to ask him, is he also extending the coverage of the waybill system to all liquid wastes, and is he going to take the next step in waste management control recommended by the International Joint Commission, namely, that he require by regulation that all waste generators register their wastes and the planned method of disposal so that approval of disposal methods and planning of disposal facilities can be initiated before the waste enters the transportation system?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I think a concise answer to that question would be “yes.” We did promise in the first statement at our committee meeting that regulations would be forthcoming. I stand by that commitment. I am more than prepared to do so.

I would say to the member that it is awfully important, when those regulations do come forward, that we have an adequate number of treatment facilities and disposal sites to look after these wastes, and that is something we are acting on very aggressively right now.

Ms. Bryden: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister not putting the horse before the cart -- or the cart before the horse --

Mr. Handleman: You were right the first time.

Ms. Bryden: -- when he says that he will not bring in the regulations requiring registration of wastes until he has the facilities? How does he know what facilities he needs before he has the information and the registration of all the wastes that are being generated?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I would like to remind the honourable member that I have a little more than passing interest in the horse-and-cart business, and I have always thought you should hitch them together. The Minister of Health asks how come his horses never win. I don’t think that is a pertinent question.

[2:45]

DISPOSAL OF CONTAMINATED TRANSFORMERS

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I want to change the tone if I might from the lighter moment in reply to the question on October 31, when the leader of the third party asked me whether I had investigated the disappearance of 114 transformers from a scrapyard.

I have now completed that investigation and quite frankly I find it intolerable that the incident took place at all and I am both angry and disappointed.

I am angry with the scrap dealer, Wagman Industries, because this company had specific instructions to store a number of transformers pending directions from my ministry as to their special handling and disposal, yet this company defied these instructions and secretly removed the transformers for disposal.

I am disappointed with my staff. When events came to light, they let the company get away with it and did no more than slap it lightly on the wrist with a reprimanding letter.

I hope the honourable members will agree with me that the vast majority of firms in the private sector are both competent and trustworthy and in general are good corporate citizens. Therefore, it would be grossly unfair to allow a flagrantly irresponsible operation on the part of one scrap dealer to give all of the industry a bad name. I find it difficult to explain, and will not try to justify, the actions of the staff of the Ministry of the Environment in failing to take a firmer action with Wagman Industries.

I view my prime responsibility as minister to protect the environment and to safeguard the health of the people of this province. Therefore I intend to see that operators are not permitted to flout the orders of my ministry and we will punish any and all violators. I have instructed my legal staff to search the evidence and if this incident constitutes a violation of any of the ministry’s statutes, then charges will be laid.

If, on a technicality, a formal notice should have been served to the company rather than a letter, I have instructed my deputy that in all cases in the future formal notice must be served. If this is not possible under the current statutes, then I will propose changes to the legislation to prevent these incidents in the future.

I would like to lay the facts before the House. In August 1977 staff of my ministry inspected a stockpile of 178 scrap electrical transformers owned by a Thornhill scrap dealer, Wagman Industries, and stored on two properties on Lenworth Drive in Mississauga. They found seven of these transformers contained oil contaminated with more than 200 parts per million of PCBs, and the balance were either empty or contained only lightly contaminated oil.

The seven transformers were clearly marked by staff, and Wagman Industries were instructed in writing to hold them, with their contents, for specific directions as to their treatment and disposal. In addition, regular checks of the storage site were made by qualified staff.

On November 30, 1977, inspection disclosed that all transformers had been removed from the site. No attempt was made by the company to clear this disposal with my staff, in spite of our specific instructions to the company in this regard. We have established that the contaminated oil was diluted with other uncontaminated oil for burning and all burnings monitored according to our established procedures. Thus, the problem does not centre on the disposal of the oil, but on the flagrant disregard of a ministry direction.

I have further instructed my staff to obtain a complete documentation of the disposal of the seven transformers, of their castings and the other materials they contain. Most likely -- and this is speculation -- the cases were recycled into new steel in Hamilton and the copper material was recycled either in Ontario or abroad. The company’s accounting records indicate that all of the 178 transformer cases were sold to scrap metal dealers, but the records do not contain specific information on the seven cases marked for special handling.

That, Mr. Speaker, is the situation. Frankly, as I said to begin with, I am very deeply concerned about the whole affair. I make it very clear to the honourable members and to the residents of Ontario that I will not tolerate any violations of this kind in the future.

Mr. Martel: Supplementary: I certainly appreciate the minister’s statement. Can he indicate where the oils contained in the transformers was burned?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: St. Lawrence Cement Company.

Mr. B. Newman: May I ask the minister if he would consider issuing some type of order requiring the utilities commissions and/or organizations that do have transformers on hand to get permission from his ministry before they are allowed to be moved from the premises?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I believe Ontario Hydro has so informed all the public utilities commissions -- that they shall move those transformers under the auspices of Ontario Hydro. I would inform the honourable member that constitutes only about 10 per cent of the transformers. The other 90 per cent are in industrial locations.

Mr. Deans: I would like to ask the minister in the course of his inquiries he could determine where the bulk of the transformers went for disposal purposes? And would he find out if the workers in those areas who were required to handle those transformers -- as he mentioned, in the Hamilton area some place -- came into contact with the PCB-contaminated material? If they did, is the minister going to monitor their health to be sure they didn’t suffer as a result of this negligence?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I believe the first thing, as I said, would be to obtain complete documentation of this; and I have instructed the staff to so do. From there, we will make the necessary decisions.

Mr. Speaker: A new question. Because of the length of the last question, I am going to add three minutes to the question period.

CFL RULE

Mr. Roy: I would like to ask the Minister of Labour a question I asked in this House three or four years ago. I think it is still of prime relevance to those of us who enjoy Canadian football.

Has the minister looked at the Ontario Human Rights Code, which I understand is still under his jurisdiction, to decide whether the designated import rule as applied in the CFL, which for all intents and purposes makes it prohibitive for a young Canadian quarterback to play football in this league, is a breach of the Ontario Human Rights Code? If it is not, is the minister prepared to amend the code to make it a breach so as to encourage young Canadians to play in the Canadian Football League at the quarterback position?

Mr. Handleman: It is before the commission now.

Mr. Kerrio: The Argos could use a couple right away.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I must have joined with the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne) when we saw that very quarterback defeated quite badly last weekend by Lauder. However, I am aware of the complaint of that quarterback and made inquiries about it this morning. I understand it is still under review by the Ontario Human Rights Commission. At this point I would prefer not to elaborate further.

Mr.

Roy: Supplementary: In view of the importance of this question -- and it has been a continuing problem for the last four or five years -- and in view of the fact the CFL owners state that the reason for the designated import role is to have American quarterbacks for a better game and better football; and in view of the somewhat disastrous season of a number of quarterbacks, at least in the Eastern Conference; and in view of the fact there are three of the four Eastern Conference teams in this province under this jurisdiction, doesn’t the minister feel, as a matter of policy, that he as minister should state the policy about either changing the Ontario Human Rights Code or getting the rule changed, to allow young Canadians to play quarterback in the Canadian Football League?

Mr. Handleman: Why don’t we change the whole import rule?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I must confess that I am not really conversant with all of the details, apart from the fact the case in point is being reviewed by the commission. But I will be glad to familiarize myself with the issue and report back to the member.

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Last week a question was raised by the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Bounsall) concerning the issuing of pension adjustment cheques by the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

I have been advised by the board that there are 61,423 active monthly pension cases. At the time the amendments were passed it was decided to give priority to adjusting current monthly cheques. Although the bulk of this work was done by a computer, 10,500 pensions, because of their complexity, had to be adjusted manually. Approximately 3,000 of these manual calculations have now been completed and of November 1, more than 52,000 insurance payments or 85 per cent of the total have been adjusted.

As well, the member asked a supplementary question concerning retroactive cheques. Although it took some time to program, it was believed that the computer approach was the logical method of processing retroactive adjustments in the shortest possible time. During the week of October 30, 47,000 retroactive payments were mailed to pensioners. With the 3,000 pensions which were manually adjusted for both current payments and retroactive payments, this means that 50,000 retroactive cheques have gone forward.

Another group of cheques is scheduled to be mailed about November 17. When this second computer run is completed the board will know the exact number of pensions that cannot have the retroactive adjustment processed by the computer. These will then have to be adjusted manually. It is expected that these final manual calculations will be completed and the cheques forwarded in the very near future.

Mr. Martel: You might start to do some of those by hand.

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: Before we go on with the question period, I’d like to remind the members that we have two distinguished guests in the Speaker’s gallery, in the person of Mr. Norbert Hebich, the consul general of the Federal Republic of Germany, who is also dean of the consular corps, accompanied by Mrs. Hebich. Would you welcome them to our assembly?

INCO LEASE

Mr. Germa: A question of the Minister of Northern Affairs: Is the minister aware that his colleague in the Ministry of Natural Resources has removed from staking 63,000 acres of crown land north of Sudbury? As the minister in charge of everything in northern Ontario, was he consulted by the Minister of Natural Resources and is he in agreement that this exclusive lease should go to the International Nickel Company?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I’d have to say that the member -- for Sudbury East, is it? Or Sudbury? --

Mr. Breaugh: Sudbury’s the name of the place. It is in northern Ontario. Drop in sometime.

Mr. McClellan: He really knows the north.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- is still smarting from the results of an event that took place about a year and a half ago. He’s still smarting from the event of a very important situation about a year and a half ago in northern Ontario.

Mr. McClellan: Speak up, Leo.

Mr. Samis: Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: What happened a year and a half ago?

Mr. Warner: Tell us, Leo.

Mr. Martel: I don’t know what you are talking about. Don’t keep me in suspense.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: He knows what I’m talking about. It was a certain event that took place about a year and a half ago from which he’s still smarting.

Mr. S. Smith: The question is, do you know what you’re talking about?

Mr. Martel: He is back here.

Mr. Speaker: I fail to see how that has any bearing on the question.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am very much aware of the actions of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Auld) and I concur.

Mr. Warner: Shame.

Mr. Germa: Supplementary: Is the minister not aware that all major finds in northern Ontario have been found by private prospectors and not by corporations and by granting exclusive lease and licence to major corporations he is going to retard the development of mining in northern Ontario?

Mr. Foulds: What did Inco do to deserve this?

Mr. MacDonald: You are against private enterprise and rugged individualism.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I’m afraid the member is not up with the year 1978. As he is very much aware, the technology available to the prospector today lies mainly with the major mining corporations. As he is very much aware, the day of the small pack-sack prospector is fast coming to an end, because many of the outcrops of northern Ontario have been examined. If the technology is available only to the major companies, then let them go in there and have a look and see if they can find a major mineral discovery.

Mr. Warner: You’re a big help.

An hon. member: What do you know about it?

Mr. Warner: You’re a disaster.

Mr. Mackenzie: What’s good for General Motors.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: What facts and figures does the minister have to back up his decision to allow the death of the prospecting industry in this province, an industry which was the envy of the world for years and many of whose members are now in demand in Australia, New Guinea and other parts of the world? What are the facts and figures he has that indicate the day of prospecting is over and that only large companies are likely to find new mineral deposits? Let him prove his case.

Mr. Havrot: You prospect dirt. You are a dirt prospector, that’s what you are.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: This question should be directed to the Minister of Natural Resources.

An hon. member: You raised it.

An hon. member: You’re the fellow from northern Ontario.

[3:00]

Hon. Mr. Bernier: But I would like to comment on the Leader of the Opposition’s comments. I’m sure he is not aware of what’s happening out there in northern Ontario. I would encourage him to come up with me some weekend and move around northern Ontario and see what’s happening with the problems of prospecting.

Mr. Foulds: He is not even going back to the Sault.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: He doesn’t like going to northern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: This government is moving in a direction to accelerate prospecting and exploration in that particular area. In fact, we just announced a major federal-Ontario agreement to do about $9 million worth of geological surveys in the Kirkland Lake area alone. That’s the kind of thrust we’re doing in northern Ontario.

Mr. Germa: I wish the minister would listen to the question. Given that this is a precedent-setting situation in that at no other time have exclusive leases been given in the Precambrian Shield, does he not think he should have consulted with this Legislature to determine future policy?

Mr. Mackenzie: No. He just had to talk to Inco.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, I don’t think so, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Foulds: What did Inco do to deserve this?

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has a short answer to a short question.

SUDBURY LIQUOR STORE

Hon. Mr. Drea: On Thursday last the member for Sudbury inquired about the proposed movement of liquor store 171 from Hemlock Street to Notre Dame Street in the city of Sudbury and the financial arrangements involved. The question is academic. The liquor store is not going to be moved from its present location on Hemlock Street.

Mr. Haggerty: It’s poison, isn’t it, Frank?

NURSE PRACTITIONERS

Mr. Sweeney: A question to the Minister of Colleges and Universities having to do with nurse practitioners at McMaster: Given that this is the only institution in Ontario which has a program for nurse practitioners, and given that we know that nurse practitioners can save the health care system of this province considerable dollars, why do we have only 10 nurses enrolled in that program?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The reason for the low enrolment is the apparent lack of enthusiasm on the part of nurses within the province for the program. There was one statement the honourable member made which I cannot agree with and that is the statement that we know it will save the health care system money. We do not know that for a fact.

Mr. Sweeney: How does the minister react to the statement made by Dean Mustard that if that program closes up it will be totally, completely the responsibility of this government?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I have some communication with Dean Mustard on frequent occasions and he’s never made that statement to me. I should be pleased to hear it from him.

Mr. Mackenzie: Supplementary: Would the minister agree that it’s not necessarily a lack of interest on the part of the nurses but the fact that they’re frozen out of any role if they do take that course at the present time?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is at least a part of the problem in that there has been, I think, less than major enthusiasm for --

Mr. McClellan: My, we are changing our story quickly today.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: -- the taking up of nurse practitioners within the structure of health care delivery than one would think there might be and there are several problems related to this. Those physicians who have been involved in programs employing nurse practitioners have been enthusiastic. Indeed, I think they have sold the concept pretty well to a very large number of their colleagues throughout the medical profession.

There are problems’ attached to the funding mechanism related to nurse practitioners which at some point I think must be resolved. There are simply not enough nurses who are really interested in expanding their role in that direction at this time and that’s the major problem.

LEARNING-DISABLED CHILDREN

Ms. Gigantes: I have a question of the Minister of Education. On October 24 she told this Legislature that in the very near future she would announce specific initiatives in the area of special education for learning- disabled children. I wonder if she would be kind enough to release to this Legislature, so that we would be well informed and able to ask questions about the program she’s going to provide, a study done by Dr.

Cliff Morgan of Guelph University, called An Investigation of the Characteristics, Distribution and Program Needs of Children with Severe Communication Disorders, a report which has cost the province $63,000 and which her ministry, though it’s had it since the end of the summer, says it won’t release until February 1979?

Some hon. members: Why?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I shall investigate that matter because I was not aware of it.

I’m sorry, I did not hear the date the member said we had received it. I haven’t seen it yet.

Ms. Gigantes: The end of the summer. We were told we can’t have it until February.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The end of the summer. Mr. Speaker, I shall investigate that and report to the House.

Mr. Warner: Shake ‘em up. Send us a copy, you’re always hiding things over there.

OTTAWA HOSPITAL FACILITIES

Mr. Yakabuski: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. In view of the fact there are still many Ottawa Valley residents who wait a considerable length of time for beds in Ottawa hospitals can the minister bring us up to date on the hospital bed situation in Ottawa?

Mr. Roy: No.

Mr. Yakabuski: Can he advise us as to what negotiations are going on with the province of Quebec whereby perhaps facilities across the river might be put in place to look after residents of that province? Doesn’t he think that perhaps it’s a bit ironic that because of the recent Quebec legislation with regard to Ontario workers --

Mr. Mackenzie: What is he trying to do, enlarge the Barry’s Bay hospital?

Mr. Yakabuski: -- that Quebec workers injured in construction in the Hull area would he treated in Ottawa hospitals?

Mr. Martel: That is carrying it a bit too far.

Mr. Mackenzie: That is not even a good setup.

Mr. Martel: I wouldn’t even answer that, Dennis.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable minister.

Mr. Eakins: “I am glad you asked it.”

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It’s a funny thing you should mention it, yes.

I’ve discussed the matter in question with -- the Minister of Social Affairs I think is his title -- the Honourable Denis Lazure in Quebec several times.

The utilization of the hospitals along the river is, in fact, factored into the bed allocation. We charge the Regie des Assurances Maladies in Quebec the per diem cost of the beds, which does not include a capital cost. This is something that I once asked the Honourable Dr. Lazure to consider, the possibility that there would be mixed in with the per diem a capital contribution. The last census I saw of bed utilization in Ottawa, for instance, I believe, indicated that on any given day 379 beds were being used by citizens of the province of Quebec.

We have been concerned about this, of course, because that is a very large number of beds. In fact, with that number, that could be any one hospital. I was pleased, therefore, to find out that the government of Quebec has approved the addition of beds to Sacre-Coeur Hospital in Hull and to the Pieta, which I believe is a chronic hospital in Hull, and as well have begun plans for the development and construction of a 300-bed hospital in the Gatineau.

With that in mind, that of course is being factored into the plans for the future in Ottawa-Carleton as the health council reviews the needs of Ottawa-Carleton and will eventually advise us on what number of beds will be needed into the 1980s and 1990s.

I end where I began -- namely that the actual utilization by residents of the province of Quebec is factored into the bed allocations for all of those towns and cities along the Ottawa River.

Mr. Ruston: It sounds rehearsed.

Mr. Roy: May I ask a supplementary, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I thought the answer was quite complete, but you might try.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, if I may ask, in view of the minister’s answer to the member for Renfrew South, would he not agree that one of the problems in getting active care beds in Ottawa is the extreme shortage in chronic care beds, and as late as the month of August he has again received definite figures they were something like 700 chronic care beds short? That’s from the health council in the Ottawa-Carleton area. What is the minister going to do about establishing more chronic care beds to free up active care beds in the Ottawa-Carleton area?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I’m pleased that the member asked. As a matter of fact, he’s quoting the wrong figures out there.

Mr. Roy: What is it, 677 or 679?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No. If my memory is correct -- and I could be wrong -- as I recall it that is the total of a number of lists, including waiting lists for nursing homes, homes for the aged, chronic care and the like. In fact I won’t try to recall because I could give the member the wrong figure, but I seem to recall that the waiting list for chronic care was well under 200 or maybe even under 150.

The fact of the matter is that a number of beds have been added in the last while. The member will recall -- I don’t think he was present, though I hope he was invited --

Mr. Roy: The minister never met his commitment.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- that I was at the Hôpital de Montfort about six weeks to two months ago for the opening of the chronic unit there.

Mr. Roy: I knew the minister was coming, that’s why I stayed away.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The member should have been there, he might have learned something.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: There were chronic beds added at the Civic. The member will also know that proposals were called for the provision of additional chronic beds in the Ottawa area. Those proposals are under active consideration right now by the district health council, and my staff is assisting them in that evaluation. In fact we have taken a number of steps over the last 18 months to two years to add beds.

Mr. Roy: The minister never met his predecessor’s promise.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, it’s quite the opposite. It’s concrete action; it’s actual beds being provided. Once more, before I sit down, I would remind the honourable member that I have approved a chronic home-care program in the Ottawa-Carleton region to begin on January 1.

Mr. Roy: About time.

SALE OF LIQUOR ON BUSES AND TRAINS

Mr. Ruston: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I wonder if he could explain his policy on liquor outlets and the availability of beer in Ontario because when he was first appointed he said that there were too many outlets and that he was going to have a shot down. Just lately he said he wants to have drinks sewed in buses and trains. Could the minister tell us what his real policy and the government’s policy are at this time?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I never said I was going to shut down outlets. I was talking about outlets in terms of the viability of the industry. That was made very plain. It was not a matter of consumption.

Mr. Kerrio: Who did your research?

Hon. Mr. Drea: As for beer on the train, surely as a veteran train rider who has been on the train he rides for a long time in the bar car --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Drea: As a matter of fact, government policy on alcohol on trains is quite adequately covered by the present regulations of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. On articulated or unit trains it is seat service, that is, on the Turbo and the Northlander; on other types of trains, it is lounge or bar car service.

As far as buses are concerned, I made it very plain when I talked about buses that I wasn’t talking about Greyhound or Gray Coach because there is an economic difficulty there, as I am sure the member knows since he travels by bus occasionally. The economic difficulty is that even to attempt to introduce that type of service would mean the removal of four, five or six revenue-producing seats. What we are talking about in terms of buses, which I have made very plain, are luxury tour buses that are taking people on 10-, 12- or 14-day excursions around the province, where the bus industry feels that that would make their home away from home a bit more convivial.

Mr. Nixon: It’s not the Scarborough commuter.

Mr. Breithaupt: It sounds like a campaign.

Mr. Bradley: Supplementary: In reference to the potential for serving beer or liquor on the bus, would the minister not agree that even in the categories he has mentioned those who would be riding on that particular bus would not have the choice of riding in a compartment which is serving liquor or one which is not, which is different from the train?

Hon. Mr. Drea: It’s not different from riding the Turbo or the Northlander. It is different from some of the older-type trains. It wouldn’t be general transportation; it would be a package tour where the passenger would be fully aware that this additional service was available at a premium. I think that’s a little bit different from on a public conveyance on the public highways.

Mr. Roy: You are not talking about the TTC.

Mr. Samis: You are talking through your hat.

Hon. Mr. Drea: The fact of the matter is that no one has applied as yet in this category and they may not be interested.

Mr. Van Horne: They’ll all have to start from scratch.

Hon. Mr. Drea: If there are going to be changes, because of the changes in the railways with the introduction of one railway company per passenger service rather than two and with the refurbishing of the entire passenger train fleet in Canada, it seemed to me only fair, as someone who believes in free enterprise, that the bus companies might very well feel that, since changes were coming into one mode of transport they might want to put some changes into their own, of course subject to government approval.

Mr. Breithaupt: They will be showing movies on them next.

[3:15]

Mr. Warner: Ask Gray Coach about free enterprise.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I am not telling them what to do. I am just saying: “Look, the transportation business is changing; if you want to change, come in and see us.”

Mr. Foulds: Do you know what you are saying?

Mr. S. Smith: What about the taxis?

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, a brief supplementary: Is the minister now telling us that, with this new policy in place, it would be possible for people to have a beer on the bus and on the train coming into Toronto to the ball game, but they wouldn’t be able to have a beer at the ball game?

Mr. S. Smith: Do you think they are more likely to throw up on the bus than at the ball game?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, number one --and I have to shout at the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere, because he never does comprehend -- there is no beer on any bus coming into Toronto.

Mr. Warner: What?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Number two, there is no new policy; the policies of the board are in writing concerning the transport industry. Number three, the matter of beer in the ball park is one of government policy -- it’s all over here; it is not mine, and it is not that of the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) --

Mr. Warner: Share the blame.

Mr. Martel: That is pure hypocrisy.

Hon. Mr. Drea: If the honourable member wants a change, then he should start working on those around me and they will tell me to change it.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege, quite reluctantly, but nevertheless I believe it is an important matter.

Mr. Kerrio: You have never risen reluctantly.

Mr. Deans: On Monday last, you will recall I asked the Minister of the Environment some questions related directly to the operations of the Upper Ottawa Street dump in Hamilton. The minister responded to my question in

part in the following way: He rejected the call for a probe into the dump, saying that much of my information was incorrect.

On the following day, the minister made a statement in the House, and a subsequent statement outside of the House, in which he admitted, outside of the House, that my allegation that records had been burned was correct and that the other matters I had raised now were being investigated.

I would ask you, sir, to instruct the minister that he should either enunciate to this House which parts of the statement that I made and the questions that I asked were incorrect, or that he withdraw his allegation that I made an incorrect statement in this House.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I said I would in due course bring to the attention of the House those things that I found incorrect. I have not had the chance yet to look at those details. I will when that occurs, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. S. Smith: Why did you say that then?

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise again on the point. The minister did not say that he doubted whether my statements were correct or that he needed time to look into them to determine the authenticity of what I was saying. He said categorically that the statements I was making were incorrect. Stand up now and tell us what they were, Parrott!

Mr. Havrot: Give him a towel.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I said I would look into it --

Mr. Deans: The minister did not say that -- and I rise again on a point of privilege. He did not say he would look into it. He said categorically the statements were incorrect. Which statements were incorrect?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Oh, Ian, sit down. You’re a petulant, pettifogging nincompoop.

Mr. Mackenzie: He can’t find one of them.

What a cheap shot from a minister.

Mr. Warner: Boy, the worm wriggles on the hook.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable minister has promised that he will he making a report, and I am sure that the apprehensions raised by the member for Wentworth will be cleared up at that time.

Mr. Swart: He should apologize.

REPORTS

STANDING PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Mr. Breaugh from the standing procedural affairs committee presented the committee’s report and moved its adoption.

Your committee has carefully examined the following applications for private acts and finds the notices, as published in each case, sufficient:

City of Windsor (No. 1);

City of Windsor (No. 2);

Regis College;

The Royal Hotel (Picton) Limited.

Report adopted.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have a second report from the standing procedural affairs committee.

Mr. Speaker: How do you wish this to be handled? Should it go on the Order Paper?

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, we had agreed previously that the chairman of the committee would present his report, give a brief statement as to what it was, and then move the adjournment of the debate; it would then go on the Order Paper.

Mr. Breaugh from the standing procedural affairs committee presented the committee’s report and moved its adoption.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, this report of the procedural affairs committee deals with a review of boards, agencies and commissions. The committee dealt with a review of 14 specific agencies in the course of our deliberations, and we present for the consideration of the House a report providing some general guidelines on agencies and some recommendations on the specific ones that were reviewed by the committee.

On motion by Mr. Breaugh, the debate was adjourned.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

Mr. M. N. Davison from the select committee on the Ombudsman presented the fifth report of the select committee on the Ombudsman and in accordance with provisional standing order 6 requested that it be placed on the Order Paper for consideration by the House at the earliest possible date.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Mr. Speaker, copies of the report are being placed in the members’ mail boxes in the post office downstairs at this moment. There are four areas of the report I would like to briefly highlight at this time for the members’ attention:

The first is in regard to the North Pickering matter. The committee is deeply disturbed by the events that have evolved since it tabled its third report in the Legislature in November 1977. The committee will be submitting a report to the Legislature on the North Pickering matter before the Christmas recess.

The second item I would bring to the members’ attention deals with the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

The committee recommends that the Workmen’s Compensation Board publish a list for distribution to the public of its policies manuals and directives respecting the adjudicative process within the board at all levels; that this list should also contain for the information of the public the board’s unit cost to supply these items; and further the committee recommends that the Workmen’s Compensation Board make available all or any portion, as the ease may be, of its policies, manuals and directives relative to the adjudicative process at all levels to the public at the board’s actual cost and any amendments, alterations, deletions, additions relative to these items contained in these documents shall also be made available to the public on the same cost basis.

Thirdly, for the first time the select committee on the Ombudsman is able to report to the assembly it is supporting and recommending the implementation of Ombudsman recommendations that have been denied by governmental organizations.

Finally, the committee has recommended the formulation of general rules for the guidance of the Ombudsman in eight areas. It will, with the benefit of the views of the members of the assembly as expressed during the debate on this report, formulate these general rules and submit them to the Legislature for adoption.

STANDING SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Mr. Gaunt from the standing social development committee presented the following resolution:

Resolved that supply in the following amount to defray expenses of the social development policy field be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1979:

Social development policy program $2,328,000.

STANDING GENERAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE

Mr. McCaffrey from the standing general government committee presented the committee’s report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr27,

An Act respecting the County of Lennox and Addington;

Bill Pr33,

An Act respecting the Town of Exeter;

Bill Pr45,

An Act to revive Reg. Booth & Son Limited.

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill Pr25,

An Act respecting the Royal Trust Company and Royal Trust Corporation of Canada.

MOTION

SITTING OF HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that when the House adjourns on Friday, November 10, it do stand adjourned until 2 p.m. Tuesday, November 14.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF NEPEAN ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved, first reading of Bill 172,

An Act to erect the Township of Nepean into a City Municipality.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am pleased to introduce this bill today, which changes the status of the township of Nepean to that of a city. This change in status has been requested by the Nepean council. The reeve of Nepean will automatically, from the effective date of this bill, become the mayor by reason of this new city status.

However, this act does not affect the representation of Nepean on the regional council, nor the composition of or method of election of the Nepean council itself. These are matters which could not be adjusted in time for this year’s municipal elections. The necessary adjustments can be made in time for elections in 1980.

Mr. Foulds: Why didn’t you use that in the title of the bill?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Elevation to city status in this instance will not alter the powers or the responsibilities of the municipality. It should be noted that grant entitlement through to the end of 1978 is not affected by the change in status. There will be minor adjustments in this respect after that.

This bill will come into effect on the day that it receives royal assent.

CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McCague moved first reading of Bill 173,

An Act to amend the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1972.

Motion agreed to.

ROYAL HOTEL (PICTON) LIMITED ACT

Mr. Gregory, on behalf of Mr. J. A. Taylor, moved first reading of Bill Pr48,

An Act to revive the Royal Hotel (Picton) Limited.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF WINDSOR ACT

Mr. B. Newman moved first reading of Bill Pr22,

An Act respecting the City of Windsor.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF WINDSOR ACT

Mr. B. Newman moved first reading of Bill Pr30,

An Act respecting the City of Windsor.

Motion agreed to.

REGIS COLLEGE ACT

Mrs. Campbell moved first reading of Bill Pr31,

An Act respecting Regis College.

Motion agreed to.

[3:30]

FIVE-O TAXI LIMITED ACT

Mr. Bradley moved first reading of Bill Pr47,

An Act to revive Five-O Taxi Limited.

Motion agreed to.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Welch: I wish to table the answers to questions 132 and 133 standing on the Notice Paper.

LEGISLATIVE BUILDING

Hon. Mr. Welch: In accordance with

section 93(1) of the Legislative Assembly Act, I am tabling on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Henderson), a copy of order in council 3195-78, together with a plan of this building which designates space in the Legislative Building which shall be under the control of Mr. Speaker.

REDIRECTION OF BILL 142

Hon. Mr. Welch: I wonder if I might have unanimous consent of the House with respect to bills to be presented soon to Her Honour?

On page 14 of today’s Order Paper, members of the House will see set out there certain bills awaiting royal assent. Included in that list is Bill 142,

An Act to establish the Ministry of Treasury and Economics.

I seek the unanimous approval of the House not to present that bill today to Her Honour as part of the package, because the House has yet to deal with Bill 166, which is a companion bill, the one establishing the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs.

It would be more appropriate to present to Her Honour Bills 142 and 166 at the same time because of the implications with respect to the present Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs.

So it would be our plan to attend upon Her Honour shortly and present all the other bills referred to on page 14, save and except Bill 142, if the House will concur.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, certainly we will not withhold unanimous consent. I would ask, however, that you might inform the House at your leisure as to whether or not all the bills awaiting royal assent must be presented in a package? I understand we have good advice that that is so, and yet it doesn’t seem consistent with the responsibility of the government as being the sole adviser to Her Honour.

I would certainly like to know your views, sir, after whatever consultation you feel is appropriate.

Mr. Speaker: I can make the commitment that it will be reviewed.

Do we have unanimous consent to do that on this occasion?

Agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I assume then that Bill 142 would simply stay on the Order Paper under the heading “Bills Awaiting Royal Assent.”

Agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

LIFELINE ACT

Mr. Sargent moved second reading of Bill 152,

An Act to provide for a Basic Residential Power Rate Applicable to the Essential Energy Needs of Residential Households in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member has up to 20 minutes.

Mr. Sargent: Fifteen and five. This is good legislation; but it is not only good for every member in this House, it is good for their constituents too.

There is an old saying that nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come, and in view of the inflationary trend of today’s living, this bill is very timely. I can’t think of anyone who would not support it, unless it was for party lines.

An hon. member: Hydro lines.

Mr. Sargent: Not Hydro lines, party lines. This bill won’t affect the average citizen, but it will help the poor, those on fixed incomes, the small home owner, the apartment dwellers -- low power users; because at this point they get a real break. Since 1971 when Davis took over as first minister here, Ontario Hydro’s budget has tripled and its long-term debt is up by 153 per cent. Hydro’s average rate to residential users has shot up, including this year’s increase, about 90 per cent, almost double in six or seven years.

I understand that studies regarding rate increases are before the Ontario Energy Board, now, but they are stalled and the answer will always be that in the fullness of time we will have action. Across this province, an area about five times the size of the state of Texas, with a population of eight million people and about two million families, at least one million families are having a rough time. Hundreds of thousands of our people, including senior citizens on fixed incomes, are subsidizing commerce and industry by paying higher rates for electricity; and they have been doing it since Adam Beck first gave us Hydro which belongs to the people.

An hon. member: From London, Ontario, a good man.

Mr. Sargent: Right. Adam Beck, the man who made Ontario Hydro Canada’s most successful experiment in socialism, promised cheap electrical power and said in 1910: “We must deliver power to such an extent that the poorest working man will have electric lights in his home.”

As we all know, Hydro has met that challenge magnificently. Its low rates and efficiency have been the envy of the world. But shortly before he died in 1925, Adam Beck took aside one of his employees and said: “Remember what I’m telling you: They have no cause to raise Hydro rates so watch what they do after I’m gone.”

Everyone has been watching in recent weeks with varying degrees of horror and dismay as Hydro, now with a budget one third that of the whole province, goes ahead with a seven per cent annual growth in power supplies and a 38 per cent increase in reserve capacity. But this great power system belongs to the people of Ontario and no one group has the right to say that the rich and powerful should control the rates. Whether they do or not, the fact remains that up until this day the residential apartment owners, small home owners, those on lower incomes, have been subsidizing industry and business.

This bill called Lifeline is now on its second appearance before this House, and we propose to do something about it.

The present policies in Ontario will still encourage people to waste power. For example, a prominent sportscaster was quoted as saying that while his large Thornhill home contains four television sets -- three in colour -- a dishwasher, two stereos, a heated pool, a washer, a dryer, power tools, total air conditioning and about a dozen outside lights switched on automatically at dusk, when he checked his Hydro bill, he was amazed that it was only $32 a month, the reason being that Hydro rates are geared to give the big user a better deal.

In the city of Toronto, the first 50 kilowatt hours used costs seven cents; 3.4 cents for the next 200 kilowatt hours; and 2.6 cents for the balance. In Owen Sound we pay 6.7 cents for the first 50 kilowatt hours, and 3.4 cents thereafter.

The old age pensioner, however, who does not use power for much more than to boil a kettle and make a little toast is actually subsidizing the people in the air-conditioned mansions.

Hydro rates last year jumped 30.3 per cent; and that increase in cost to residential customers using 750 kilowatt hours runs about $50 a year. The price of electricity is rising so dramatically it now threatens to price itself beyond the ability of many people to afford it. But because Hydro is locked into a $25-billion program, the increases in power rates by 1980 are projected to add another $300 a year to your electricity bill.

It is most important that we face this issue now. Lifeline is a proposal of rate reform to provide relief to the low users of electricity. We are talking about the poor. Their electricity usage is significantly lower than that of the higher-income groups. But studies reveal that 5.2 per cent of the income of the low-income groups goes for power,

whereas for the average person it is one per cent of income.

Another group that has low energy use and would benefit from Lifeline is the elderly. They, along with people on mother’s allowance, are part of the larger group that is generally low users of electric power, such as the apartment dwellers. Members of the government, I suspect, are going to try to find some way to block this bill. But they must realize possibly each member has about 2,000 to 3,000, or maybe thousands more, in the elderly group of people among constituents. That is what we are talking about -- equity. Due to their smaller living quarters and generally smaller family size, this group would benefit from Lifeline.

So, in effect, rate structures should act to reward, not penalize, low users. The result is that large users who impose the greatest cost on the system are now receiving these expensive kilowatt hours at low, declining block rates from Hydro. Thus commerce and industry have been receiving a subsidy all these years at the expense of the low, residential user.

There is an urgent need, because of inflation, to reconsider our patterns of growth and consumption. It is no longer feasible to expect a utility rate structure to charge small low-income users seven cents per kilowatt hour; large, affluent users, three cents per kilowatt hour; and an industrial user between one and two cents.

A Lifeline rate structure would seek to redress this situation. While it may not be the perfect solution, I think it is the best we can come up with right now. Lifeline can help meet the immediate short-run needs of consumers caught in the grip of a spiralling price structure and offer a first step towards development of a more equitable rate structure.

We know that electricity is a necessity for the lifestyle of our people. There are no substitutes for electricity to give a decent standard of living. Through the Lifeline rate we can provide relief for all low and moderate users of electricity, as well as the poor and elderly.

[3:45]

This will end the inequity. The poor spend proportionately more of their income on electricity than any other income group. Lifeline ends this inequity by causing large users to bear their fair shares of the costs of generating and distributing electricity. As far as conservation is concerned, this will encourage conservation. In other words, the less you use, the less you pay.

I submit, in my view as elected representatives of the people of Ontario, it’s a duty of those of us who sit here to establish a policy for the local Hydro commissions to go by. Lifeline is a broad pricing issue on which this Legislature is empowered to provide proper guidelines in order to achieve more responsive and responsible rate making policies.

I’ve got the wheels down now, I’m coming in for a landing.

Mr. Kennedy: Don’t hit the tower.

Mr. J. Reed: Trim your flaps, Eddie.

Mr. Sargent: Objections notwithstanding, I want to say that Lifeline is perhaps the brightest concept to emerge from the energy crisis. The low income householders and the fixed income elderly householders are dependent upon electricity to maintain health and home. When the price of electricity rises to a point where it begins to consume an unusually large share of income, lifestyles of our people are threatened.

Lifeline would guarantee an amount of electricity which can provide for the basics of life at a reasonable rate. Beyond that low rate, a signal is given in the form of a higher rate to all those desiring more electricity. If you want to use more power, you must pay for it. The choice is yours. This will not affect the average citizen at all. It’s a concept designed to distribute energy to people in a fair manner. I do hope that the members will see their way clear to support this legislation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the honourable member wish to take off again with the remaining time at the end? Do you wish to reserve the balance of time?

Mr. Sargent: Yes, that’s fine, thank you.

Mr. J. Reed: Keep your flaps down, Eddie.

Mr. MacDonald: I think this bill is worthy of support. I agreed with virtually everything that the honourable member who introduced it said, until he began to get off on rhetorical flourishes that led me to believe that he wasn’t coming down, he was going up. I don’t know whether the Lifeline concept is really the most exciting concept. There are lots of exciting concepts that have come out of the energy crisis. However, that’s a niggling point. Let me get around to my basic support of the bill.

Rate structures in the province of Ontario for the sale of electricity have become to an increasing extent out of whack with stated public policy. As we’re all aware, we’ve had rate structures which in effect said the more you consume the less you pay incremently for those lesser amounts. Therefore there was a great encouragement to use electricity as though it were going out of style. That’s the kind of situation which, in an age of rising prices and the required conservation effort which is now the main focus of public policy or one of the main focuses of public policy, I think we’ve got to reconsider.

In this whole restructuring that is going to take place it seems to me we’ve got to have a rate policy that will fulfil the stated policies that have been enunciated by the government.

The problem in coming to grips with this is that it’s an incredibly complex situation. If I may I will fill in a few details the honourable member did not mention when he was introducing his bill with regard to the study that was done.

As far back as 1974 it was recognized that there were inequities in the sale and pricing of electricity. In a two-year period, from 1974 to 1976, the study was completed. It’s a study of very great magnitude. I’m told there are no fewer than 10 volumes in the original report.

The result is that when this was tabled in the House by the minister in the fall of 1976 it was referred to the Ontario Energy Board. But the Ontario Energy Board, like many of our quasi-judicial bodies, is swamped and overloaded with work and wasn’t able to get around to considering this report until June 1977.

The problem proved to be such a large one that it was broken down into four phases and only at the present time is the Ontario Energy Board getting around to hearings on the fourth phase. I’m told it is possible that those hearings will conclude early in the new year. Following that there will have to be an opportunity for

summary by counsel on behalf of many of the interveners in the spring.

The voluminous hearings will then have to be absorbed and sorted through by the energy board, so it is quite possible the energy board is not going to be able to make its report until the latter part of 1979.

In short, Mr. Speaker, the prospect that the recommendations of the Ontario Energy Board will trigger a whole new rate structure in the province is one I think we can look forward to at the earliest in 1980 and, knowing the way these things sometimes get delayed, even perhaps beyond that.

However, I do agree with the honourable member who introduced the bill that he is dealing with one important aspect of this whole restructuring of rates and the hope and the objective of getting a more equitable imposition of the cost of generating and transmitting power.

As he points out, this is not going to affect the average family that uses electricity very extensively. It will primarily affect the small householder, the person of limited income. It’s usually said that a figure in the Lifeline concept at which they would get this special rate is going to be in the range of 500 kilowatt-hours per month. That’s not a very high consumption level. It will be the lower income groups, the poor, who are going to benefit from it.

I’m told all the recommendations that have been made and all the testimony that has been advanced to the Ontario Energy Board is that when we do go into a rate restructuring we should get away from this incrementally lower charge the more you use and that there should be a flat rate throughout, so whether it be an individual or whether it be an industry, if they’re using massive amounts of electricity, they’re not going to get a lower rate, a volume discount, so to speak. That is self-defeating in terms of the conservation and the preserving of our resources and self-defeating in terms of doing something about the size of the generation program we must have in Ontario.

Whether or not in the Lifeline concept you should have a lower rate than the flat rate throughout for the 500 kilowatt-hours that would be made available to the small householder, I think is an option in the package that might be considered. I, for one, don’t object to the idea that the Lifeline should be at a lower rate than the flat rate that might project beyond 500 kilowatt-hours per month.

If I may pick up on some of the evidence the honourable member advanced when he was introducing his bill, let us remind ourselves that traditionally industry has been subsidized by lower rates in Ontario. Indeed, one of the regular complaints, sometimes from public utilities, and certainly from individuals who are getting their power directly from Ontario Hydro, is that they were paying higher rates than was the case, for example, to somebody else in the community.

I can remember some years ago going into the Lakehead and hearing of a great protest because of the rate charged to the public utility locally by Hydro. It was a higher rate than the one being charged to certain industries in the community.

So if industry and certain segments have in one way or another, directly or indirectly, been getting subsidies down through the years, indeed traditionally, I think it is not an offensive or reprehensible concept that in accepting a Lifeline concept, the rate for that initial 500 kilowatt-hours per month should be lower than the flat rate that will project right through all the rest of the sales.

There’s another argument that I recall, advanced at the select committee two or three years ago, in 1976, against giving favourable rates to those in small households. It was argued that very often in that small household you had less efficient electrical equipment -- toasters, irons, what you will -- that was using more electricity than might be the case elsewhere. Therefore what you were doing was encouraging these people to use these less efficient things which used more energy.

I think that’s a rather specious argument against the whole Lifeline concept. It’s sort of nibbling at the corner of the whole concept.

If we have certain equipment being sold in Ontario or in any jurisdiction that is of such low quality that it is using excessive amounts of electricity, I think the time has come for implementation of one of the recommendations of the select committee, which was for standards that have to be met by manufacturers -- certainly informing the consumer as to the likely consumption by any given piece of electrical equipment or electricity-using equipment, so they will know that they may be paying a lower price for something but they’re going to pay even more in the long run because it consumes more electricity.

They may then buy a piece of equipment that is of high enough standard to avoid this excessive use of electricity.

In short, Mr. Speaker, I think the whole concept is a worthy concept. I think it’s going to become part of the overall restructuring of rates in the province of Ontario. I’ve already indicated my theories that we’re not going to be able to get to that restructuring until about 1980, but I see no reason why this bill can’t be passed because it envisages the steps that will be taken at the local public utility level for its implementation. With all of the preparatory work done, hopefully sooner rather than later we can get into overall restructuring, with this particular benefit in advance for low income families and households.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member for Mississauga South.

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to have an opportunity to make a few comments on this very interesting bill, the subject of which has been under discussion for quite a number of years. I wish the problem could be resolved in the 10 minutes that just a handful of us have to comment in. It’s much more complex than that.

Lifeline rates originated in the US. They were developed by the telephone system and ensured that low-price service rates were available to the elderly and the infirm.

The intention of reduced rates was to permit these people to telephone their doctors or check on their acquaintances’ health, hence the term Lifeline rates. it’s been distorted, though, and one wonders whether it refers to welfare, income redistribution, or indeed to conservation.

I commend the member for Grey-Bruce for bringing this forward. He stated that his concern is because of increased rates; and we’re all concerned about that, and the impact increased rates have on those on fixed incomes and low-income groups. But as I interpret the bill, the Lifeline rates would apply to all users, even our illustrious sponsor of the bill, that entrepreneur from Grey-Bruce. In the application of the bill, the benefits catch everyone; they are available to everyone. There is no stipulation of a maximum income limitation, therefore the affluent benefit just as those on fixed incomes or low incomes do.

[4:00]

It would be difficult to implement these fairly or rationally. There are difficulties with this situation in California, I understand. The economic burden of energy costs have been redistributed there according to the same principle advocated in this bill, as mentioned in the pamphlet the member kindly sent along to all the members.

I want to give one example -- and again I am sorry we are pressed for time on this, I will do this as quickly as I can. Anyone who has even a remote acquaintance with farming will know this endeavour requires a great amount of power. The farmers were the ones hardest hit when these rates were adopted in California.

There were power cost shifts. That’s one of the key points I would like to make. The Adam Beck philosophy of power at cost has existed since inception. Invariably, if you are going to have power at cost and some get benefits or below-cost levies against them for power, someone else is going to pay the freight.

This is what happened in California, with its heavy users in the farming fraternity, to the detriment of the farming community. I’m told it cost jobs and markets and so on. This points to a general observation: In rural communities where farm electrical usage is very high and income can be low, experience indicates that volume of electricity cannot be equated fairly to income. You simply can’t do this. The assumption that income and use of electricity are closely related is a fallacy. While Lifeline rates might benefit all low-user groups, they will not benefit all low-income groups in isolation from other economic portions of society.

I will mention another problem. It is next to impossible for any agency to determine a basic requirement for electricity in a way which is both simple to define and simple to bill. How can this bill be fair to customers whose requirements may vary due to family size, location, use of electricity for water or space heating, as the previous speakers have mentioned?

The different methods of cooking make a difference. It’s most essential that you look at propane versus microwave versus an ordinary electric stove. It is very complicated and complex. I shudder at the thought of our 337-odd utilities developing what would be the initial rate suggested in the bill. It would be horrendous.

I’m sure the member realizes that this wouldn’t be an easy task. If the member is concerned about bringing relief from the high costs of electricity to certain energy customers I think there are more efficient ways. Perhaps a tax credit application could be instituted. I don’t think we should mix social assistance, which this bill attempts to do, with the power-at-cost policy which has been applied in principle since the beginning.

Mr. Breaugh: Why are you picking on the poor? It seems an unfair thing to do.

Mr. Kennedy: I suggested we help the poor. You weren’t listening.

Mr. Breaugh: I listened, unfortunately; that’s your problem.

Mr. Kennedy: How much time do I have?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Three minutes.

Mr. Kennedy: With respect to conservation and wastefulness, I’ll grant the member that electricity as a service is essential -- anyone knows that -- to the support and maintenance of each community. Certain activities we engage in and which use energy are necessities, others involve a luxurious use; but the pricing

schedule of manufactured goods must take into account the production cost to the consumer and energy is one of these costs. If there is a shift to the industrial sector this will put up the price of our manufactured goods.

Mr. J. Reed: Oh come on, we are not talking economy here.

Mr. Kennedy: One of the key elements in the rate design is the effort to conserve. I very much agree with taking a good look at the cost of these power blocks; maybe a move to flatten it out, as the second speaker mentioned, has a lot of merit. Our own rate shifted between 1977 and 1978. The increase for the first 500 kw was 8.3 per cent; the second block went up 13.6 per cent, but it was still the lower rate going up 13.6 per cent.

I was on our own utilities commission for a number of years when the big cry was “sell,” because the capital was invested and we should recover these costs, but I think since the shortage of energy has come up and costs have risen so dramatically this should be reversed.

Mr. Germa: There is no shortage.

Mr. Kennedy: Either level out -- or reduce if possible, I’d go along with that -- the first power block; but the others should be looked at with the object of discouraging luxurious use and wasteful use of electricity. I would quite agree with that.

Mr. J. Reed: Come on, vote for it. You really know you agree with it.

Mr. Kennedy: I sure do.

The whole situation is oversimplified here. I am interested that the Ontario Energy Board is working on this. We deal with two things: the discrimination against low income groups and with conservation. But there are many other aspects of the problem, and as such I cannot support the bill. I am going to suggest a veto of it. I want to get it over as a part of the examination of the committee to have a good look at what we are saying here.

Mr. J. Reed: Don’t you want to help the people?

Mr. Kennedy: The current review is paying particular attention, I understand, to the member for Grey-Bruce, and I think it would be premature to accept at this time a proposal for such radical changes of doubtful merit --

Mr. Foulds: Doubtful? To whom?

Mr. Kennedy: -- when we have not yet heard Hydro’s recommendations. We should wait for that.

Mr. J. Reed: Radical? The Americans have been doing it for years.

Mr. Kennedy: I’ll say it again: If you take it from one block, you are going to shift it elsewhere.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. Kennedy: We better have a good look at it and see what this committee recommends.

Mr. Germa: Eddie knows what he is doing.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I want first to heartily commend my colleague from Grey-Bruce for his foresight and generosity, and his concern for disadvantaged citizens in introducing this legislation into the House.

Mr. Foulds: Intelligence too.

Mr. B. Newman: It is nothing new; we have talked about it for years and years, but it took the member for Grey-Bruce to finally take the bull by the horns and attempt to get action from the government over there. He certainly deserves our commendation.

The previous speaker mentioned about going to blocks -- Hydro charging according to blocks. It isn’t too long ago we paid our water rates exactly the same way, we paid electrical rates the same way, we paid gas rates the same way. The first amount of energy used you paid at one price, and the second amount it was either a little higher or lower according to the policy of the utility that was selling that type of energy.

So this is nothing new.

Mr. Kennedy: Just what I said; it is nothing new.

Mr. B. Newman: My colleague is not only interested in the welfare of the disadvantaged, the senior citizen and the one having difficulty meeting his bills, but he is also interested from the conservation point of view. We have to conserve energy. This could be one start in the whole program of conservation.

I can’t make mention of the word conservation strongly enough.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read portions of two letters to show you the concern of the average citizen. One gentleman writes to me: “I’m a pensioner, and I’m not going to plead poverty; but, considering that my monthly budget payment started at $12 and is now increased from $12 to $21 to $25, how much can one endure?” And he is referring solely to electricity.

Here’s another one: “We are strongly opposed to paying $76 a month out of our pension to pay for our energy.”

Possibly the one paying $76 may not benefit as much because the block may be small. But even if the block is small, it still is to the advantage of a senior citizen who, possibly because of health reasons, has to turn up the thermostat a bit, or uses additional types of electrical appliances to have a little better standard of living.

It isn’t too long ago that Hydro was telling us to live better electrically. I hope that in Hydro’s new rate structure they will take into consideration those many citizens who built their homes and put in electric heating on the assumption that energy would be available to them at a fair and a decent price. Now they find that it is beyond their means; they’re going to be involved in substantial financial outlays in remodelling their homes to use another type of energy unless Hydro fulfils its original promise to them and provides them with energy at a special rate.

The elderly are probably hit the hardest by rapidly rising energy costs for quite a few reasons. First, they often have lower incomes, and they sometimes face the grim choice of “heat or eat.” Second, the elderly often have little or no savings with which to install better insulation, storm windows or more efficient furnaces. Third, they often live in older houses or apartments which desperately need refurbishing to cut down on wasted energy.

Finally, the elderly suffer much more from sharp drops and increases in temperatures and, as they grow older, their body thermostats lose some of that flexibility. Just from that point of view, we have got to adopt the Lifeline suggestions of my colleague from Grey-Bruce. Let’s at least attempt to make their lives a little more livable for them.

The member for Grey-Bruce is introducing one concept, and he refers only to electrical energy. We have also got to look at gas energy, because the price of gas for household use has skyrocketed over the last couple of years. I would hope that Bill 152, when it is sent to committee, will at some stage involve the gas companies on the price of gas energy.

I wonder if members are aware of the practices of some of the gas companies, or of Union Gas, where even though a customer pays a security deposit -- because a security deposit may be required of certain customers -- if that customer is delinquent one day in paying his overdue gas bill, he is charged five per cent interest, even though that same customer may be on a budget billing system and have dollars of credit on his account, having paid in for more energy than he has consumed.

Because he is late on his billing, he pays a five per cent penalty; yet the gas company has his money well in advance or has collected from him more money than the cost of the energy he has consumed. That type of a billing practice should stop as far as the gas industry is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have? Do you know?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Close to four minutes.

[4:15]

Mr B. Newman: I’ll wind up because I want one of my colleagues to have an opportunity to make a few comments and constructive suggestions.

The state of Michigan has acted on this in an attempt to relieve the suffering of those on fixed incomes, those who receive government assistance, as well as the senior citizens. They are using a scheme now where for the first 300 kilowatt-hours a month the customer who is 65 or over pays $7.45 a month,

whereas the normal rate would have been $13.45. They are subsidizing him by charging him a lower rate, just exactly what my colleague from Grey-Bruce is attempting to bring to the attention of the members in this piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague from London North to have an opportunity later to take up the balance of my time.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill.

Mr. Sargent: He’ll be a Liberal senator.

Mr. Breaugh: Here, please!

I find the concept and the principle espoused in this bill to be a most worthwhile endeavour. I recognize that a great many other people in other jurisdictions -- and I suppose I should mention Jeremy Akerman who in the maritime provinces has been proposing this type of legislation for some time now.

I have listened to the arguments pro and con, both before the debate today and during the course of today’s debate. Frankly I find them not convincing. I suppose we could all engage in a fantastically complicated debate, discussion and consideration of the way Hydro sets its rates and the way power is distributed throughout Ontario and the inequities that are there in this energy-production system, or in natural gas, or in propane, or in oil, or in anything else.

I think in this bill we have the opportunity to look at something which is basically under public control. Whether that control is with Ontario Hydro or with a local public utilities commission makes no difference to me. The basic fact I look at there is that there is massive public investment already in place in the production of electrical energy in the province of Ontario. The distribution system by and large is almost totally within the public domain. The reason for that is that it is an essential service.

The reason for all of that public expenditure to develop new energy sources and to provide a distribution system which is in public, not private, hands is that it’s something you just can’t leave to the whim of the private sector.

It has been clearly recognized in this province -- and by a Conservative government, I might add -- that the nationalization of electric production and in large

part its distribution are essential and ought to be in the public sector.

Mr. Kerrio: The cheapest power in Ontario is sold by a private corporation -- Canadian Niagara Power.

Mr. Breaugh: That was done some time ago by a Tory in Ontario so it’s not new, but I think it does point out that even in this House, where sometimes we divide along the lines of political parties, there is a clear consensus, and has been for a long time, that production of electrical energy and the distribution system are essential and ought to be in the public sector.

The reason for that is obvious. We’re providing an essential service to people in our province and we don’t want that left to the whim of the private sector.

If we were looking at a nationalized anything that worked well, in my view we sure wouldn’t look at Ontario Hydro. But setting aside all of its obvious faults and some rather serious and substantial financial errors that have been made over the years, we still have retained it in the public sector.

Mr. Kerrio: Poetic licence.

Mr. Breaugh: The reason for that, or a prime reason for that, is to allow us to exercise some control over that. In this bill, simplistic though it might be, a clear intent is expressed on the part of this House that our energy source and our distribution system ought to be fair to the people who paid for it in the first instance. That, of course, is the purpose of having it in the public sector, so we can retain that kind of control, so the members of this House can deal with legislation such as this.

There are those who say -- and I’ve heard it said already this afternoon -- that we don’t want to confuse some form of social assistance with the production and distribution of electrical energy. Why not? Are they making an argument that you’d be better off charging them full tilt and then providing them with another welfare cheque to pay their hydro bills? It concerns me that perhaps we’re not far away from that. In fact, a great amount of our social assistance dollar goes back to the government in paying off this kind of a bill. I think that is a ridiculous thing indeed.

It is certainly a logical and practical measure that we could devise. It is something which has been referred to by a number of speakers as Lifeline legislation. The only reservation I have about that is the use of the term Lifeline. It is a little too Americanized for me. But whatever one wants to call it, I think it does point out that there is a clear and identified need in the province of Ontario today to rectify a fault in the system.

That fault is a very simple one that has been mentioned by a number of members here, that the more energy one uses the cheaper it gets. If one is at the bottom of the user scale, if he doesn’t use very much, he isn’t rewarded for that, but he is penalized. And more than that, I think it is clear from a number of speakers and the research that has been done in the area, we are penalizing those people who can least afford to be penalized.

There is a gross unfairness that has been properly pointed out. It is the obligation of the members of this House to rectify that. I am not proposing that the bill currently before this House couldn’t use having a little work done on it. That could certainly be handled quite nicely by the members of this House in committee. I am saying that the intent of the bill is a supportable intent and ought to be supported by members on all sides.

Let me put to members a fear that I have. There is a provision for blockage of such bills in this House. I would be one who would be extremely sad to see any members who oppose this kind of legislation not having the intestinal fortitude to stand up and vote against it, if they feel they are against this form of assistance in trying to give to people at the lower end of the economic scale a chance to survive in our society. I don’t think we should mess around, and that is precisely what it is. If one is in northern Ontario and his home is electrically heated that is survival, because he needs that.

The member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) is going to rise and participate in this debate a little later and point out a community called Armstrong in northern Ontario where they are really badly hit by this kind of rating structure. He will go into the details a bit more. The plain fact is that in many parts of Ontario we are providing a dearly essential service in providing electrical power to those people on the distribution system, and the rates that go with that are important considerations.

Mr. Kennedy: It is one household budgetary item of many.

Mr. Breaugh: I want to close by saying let those members who disagree with this bill stand up and vote against it and not hide behind any blocking procedure. If they have a good argument and if they are prepared to make it, let them stand up and vote and not hide behind the skirts of a rule that allows them to block. If they feel very strongly about that, as obviously the member does, let them do it. Let the people of Ontario see it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Motherhood.

Mr. Breaugh: If they think it is motherhood, they surely are not going to vote against motherhood. They should be quite prepared to let it go to a vote. They should have no problem with that at all.

Mr. Kennedy: Electricity rates are just one household budgetary item.

Mr. Breaugh: Even the member who is not going to have any difficulty with Lifeline rates or any other kind of rates, because he is well looked after by the provisions of the Legislative Assembly Act, should clearly be prepared to put his position fairly and simply before the House and let the matter come to a vote.

I support this legislation. I recognise it is a little on the simplistic side, I recognise it could use a little work in committee. We have provided for all of that. In essence, we are asked in this course of the debate to speak to the principle of the bill. Surely nothing could be fairer and nothing could be more just than to apply through our own publicly-owned agencies a measure of fairness so that those people who have supported this province, this government, and this electrical system with their tax dollars throughout all their working lives would now get a measure of fairness when they need it.

Mr. Cureatz: Might I begin by saying that I feel very privileged to take

part in the debate today for two reasons, the first being that it is always refreshing to hear the member for Grey-Bruce bring forward his particular views.

Mr. Cunningham: Maiden speech.

Mr. Kerrio: The member is going to support the bill.

Mr. Cureatz: Certainly during question period it is always refreshing to bear some of the bits of comic relief provided by that member to relieve some of the anxieties that take place within these chambers.

Mr. J. Reed: I hope the member takes this bill seriously.

Mr. Cureatz: The second reason I feel very honoured to rise on this bill is that the production of electricity is beginning to be a very key factor for my particular riding of Durham East and my constituents.

The member for Grey-Bruce for the second time in almost two years wishes the members of the Legislature to support a proposal to establish Lifeline rates for the residential consumers of electricity in Ontario. I have two reactions to this proposal. The first, is to commend the honourable member on his fortitude -- and I am sure his altruism, considering the hardships that rapidly escalating energy costs have on those citizens who have low or middle-level incomes. This is a concern for each and every member of this Legislature.

The second point I must direct to the member is, regrettably, the solution proposed is a rather simplistic answer to a very complicated problem. It is no more workable today than it was two years ago and thus I am not able to support his proposal. However, there are several points that I would like to address which are germane to the topic.

The first point pertains to the cost incurred by the consumers of electricity in Ontario. The member for Grey-Bruce goes to great lengths to emphasize the financial hardships that Ontario electrical rates place on our consumers. It might be interesting to compare the prices we pay here with those of several other jurisdictions.

Consumers in New York City in July of this year had to pay $82 per 1,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity. Citizens of Boston paid $49 for the same amount, but the figure for St. John’s, Newfoundland, was $34. In Vancouver, 1,000 kilowatt-hours cost $33. Toronto customers paid the lowest rate of the cities surveyed, $26 per 1,000 kilowatt-hours. I am told that the rate for rural Ontario is approximately $2 higher per 1,000 kilowatt-hours.

One of the reasons that the comparative levy for electric power is so low by comparison in Ontario is because part of required supply is generated through nuclear fission reactors. They are comparatively cheap to fuel and the fuel source is indigenous to Ontario. Ontario Hydro uses this economic means of generation to provide the base load supply required to meet its demands. The generators requiring more expensive fuels are used when demand climbs above the base load generator’s ability to supply.

Ontario Hydro’s next nuclear generating station will be placed in my riding of Durham East. The people of Durham East, therefore, have a vested interest in Ontario Hydro’s activities. We recognize that nuclear generation of electricity is a means of keeping Ontario Hydro’s rates much lower than those of other jurisdictions. As I stated before, Mr. Speaker, Ontarians do pay a lower price than most other areas in Canada and the United States.

No system is a perfect system. Ontario Hydro recognizes that there are a few flaws in the present system of levying charges to their power consumers. In a submission to a select committee of this Legislature examining the rate structure in 1976 they make this point, that they consider their present assessment method the fairest possible to their consumers.

Mr. J. Reed: Somebody wrote that for you, Sam.

Mr. Cureatz: They reject the Lifeline system because it