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

December 16, 1977

31st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

HYDRO TRANSFORMER FIRE

LEGISLATIVE STAFF

NDP LEADER

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

DISCRIMINATORY BUSINESS PRACTICES BILL

NDP LEADER

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

GATT NEGOTIATIONS

ENERGY REPORT

ALUMINUM WIRING

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO TRANSFORMER FIRE

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

LAYOFF OF NICKEL WORKERS

NUCLEAR WASTE

FINANCIAL PROTECTION FOR FARMERS

HOSPITAL EMPLOYEE BARGAINING

MANAGEMENT STUDY

SOUTH AFRICA BOYCOTT

BRADLEY-GEORGETOWN HYDRO CORRIDOR

SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

REPORT

CONDOMINIUM STUDY GROUP

MOTION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

DISCRIMINATORY BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT

ANSWER TO WRITTEN QUESTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

BUDGET DEBATE (CONCLUDED)

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

SUPPLY ACT

ROYAL ASSENT

PROROGATION SPEECH

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HYDRO TRANSFORMER FIRE

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Kerr) made a number of statements with regard to the fire in the transformer on Adelaide Street. We have good reason to believe these statements have served to misinform the House in a serious way. I’d like to quote the statements point by point, if I might. The first one I quote from the Minister of the Environment from Instant Hansard, page 24:

“Hydro knows full well the steps that have to be taken and the information that should be given to the firemen when they arrive on the scene.”

We have spoken to Mr. John Smith, the platoon chief at the Adelaide Street fire hall, who was the senior fire department official at the scene of the fire. He was contacted yesterday by our research office at 5:30 p.m. He asked for the Hydro man in charge of the site and he said he was told that the fire involved “a new type of inflammable liquid used in the transformer.” He was not told that the material had any toxic qualities. This was confirmed by Mr Goyette, assistant manager of power service department of Toronto Hydro, who says in today’s Globe and Mail:

“Toronto Hydro has no contingency plans for such emergencies involving transformer fires containing PCBs.”

Point two: “Hon. Mr. Kerr: We advised all the employees and the firemen of what was involved here and what precautions should be taken. That information was given on the scene.

“Mr. Lewis: To whom?

“Hon. Mr. Kerr: To the Hydro employees and to the firemen. That information was passed immediately by our people from central region who attended on the scene at about 1:00 to 1:30 p.m. that day.”

Mr. John Smith, the platoon chief, says he was on the scene until the very last firefighter left at approximately 11 a.m. That means that he left and the others left at least two hours before the environment officials even arrived on the scene. He said he was not aware even yesterday at 5:30 p.m. of any particular dangers connected with the fire. He says, furthermore, that he took no special precautions with respect to his clothing or equipment.

This has been confirmed by Fire Chief Bonser, and I quote from the Globe and Mail: “His men weren’t informed about the health hazards of the PCBs until he read about it in the Globe.”

Point three -- and perhaps a somewhat lesser point -- the Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson) prior to the arrival of the Environment minister said, and I quote, that, “the site has been entirely cleaned at this point,” meaning yesterday. This was allegedly confirmed by the Environment minister outside the House.

Now, however, ministry officials quoted in the Globe and Mail, and I quote: “Removal of the soot covering the building would not begin until basically Thursday night,” -- that’s last night, some time after we met here in the House.

Now there are obvious concerns arising from this. I won’t labour the point by listing all the very clear contradictions; but when the lives of people are at stake, when the very future of the employees of Hydro, the firemen, the passers-by, the employees in the building and nearby buildings and those working there, are in danger; and when the House is so misinformed, basically what we are left with is either the conclusion that the minister has perhaps in some way, inadvertently, misinformed the House or he himself has been seriously misinformed by his own officials.

I believe the privileges of the members here who have raised these questions yesterday have been seriously affected by this type of behaviour on the part of the minister, and I would hope that the government would have a statement to make on this subject today.

Hon. B. Stephenson: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I did not state that I knew that indeed the clean-up had been completely carried out at that point. I had been informed that indeed the cleanup had been carried out and that’s what I reported to the House.

Mr. S. Smith: I can accept that.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I speak to the point of privilege: I, too, was extremely taken aback by the way the Minister of the Environment handled this matter during question period yesterday. Immediately after question period, I phoned directly and personally spoke to Fire Chief Bonser of the city of Toronto.

He informed me -- and he is such a straight and open man that I could not believe it otherwise -- that he didn’t have the slightest idea of the hazards to which they were subject until phoned by a reporter five days later, that most of his men and the equipment -- 22 men and the equipment -- were off the job by 9 in the morning, two hours after the fire had started and that the Minister of the Environment arriving at 1 o’clock therefore had no one to speak to, as the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out.

The fire chief informed me that even though they had been warned as firemen about hydro transformers, the possibility of electric faults, the possibility of the coolants causing difficulty, they had never before this instance encountered the evaporations of a highly toxic substance like PCB. Everything this man scrupulously told me in a direct phone conversation contradicts directly the positions which the Minister of the Environment put before this Legislature yesterday. I don’t believe that the minister would deliberately mislead this House, but I think he owes this Legislature a strong and early apology before this House rises, because there’s too much at stake.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, on the point of privilege: I understand the minister is on his way here. I am not familiar with the facts of the situation but I understand he’s on his way from his office. Perhaps he will either reply to the concern expressed by the members opposite or he may make some statement, or perhaps through questions some of these matters can be sorted out. The minister does plan to be here.

Mr. Speaker: Due to the nature of the point of privilege, I think the House will accord the hon. minister an opportunity to respond when he does arrive.

LEGISLATIVE STAFF

Mr. Speaker: Before we commence the business of the House today, and since it appears that the session will be prorogued later this morning, may I take just a moment to extend to members and all others concerned, my sincere thanks for their cooperation and assistance during the period I have been in the chair. In particular, I want to thank those who are responsible for the operation of the House. Hon. members are of course aware, of the visible staff who support us here; the clerks, the legislative counsel, those from Hansard, and those with whom we work directly.

However, I do want to express publicly my thanks and best wishes for the holiday season to the many people who help us in many unseen ways. I will not take the time to enumerate them on this occasion, but I know members of the House will want to express their best wishes to all of the employees of the House, for a joyous Christmas.

NDP LEADER

Mr. Speaker: Also, I would not like to let the day pass without noting the last day on which the member for Scarborough West (Mr. Lewis) will lead the New Democratic Party in this House.

Mr. Lewis: Well, we could have an election before it’s over.

Mr. Speaker: The member has, since 1970, been a dedicated partisan, and I mean that in the most complimentary way. Since the member is only surrendering party leadership and not his seat in the House, the House will continue to have the benefit of his wit and wisdom for some time to come.

I look forward to giving my personal greetings to members and all others concerned with the House in room 228 after prorogation.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

DISCRIMINATORY BUSINESS PRACTICES BILL

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, during my visit to Israel last January, and more recently here in Toronto, I stated that I would introduce a bill to make it clear that as far as Ontario was concerned, economic boycotts which prejudice citizens of this province by virtue of their ethnic background, religious affiliation or freely expressed views, will not be tolerated by this Legislature and the people of Ontario.

In fulfilment of this statement, I will be introducing -- or the government House leader on my behalf, depending on the hour -- a bill called the Discriminatory Business Practices Act, 1977.

This House may deal with matters of property and civil rights, and accordingly the problem has been addressed here from that viewpoint.

The legislation deals with discrimination in relation to creation of contracts of a primary, secondary and tertiary nature within Ontario, and with the disclosure of information, or the required request for information, of ethnic background, religious affiliation, et cetera, of the contracting parties. The enforceability of contracts involving such discrimination is made null and void; a civil remedy by way of prohibition is also provided. By these civil means, it is our hope that this province will clearly indicate its abhorrence of such discriminatory practices within its boundaries.

I have today forwarded copies of this legislation to all nine other provincial Premiers and to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce for Canada. I commend this legislation to them.

I am well aware, Mr. Speaker, as I am sure other members are, there have been, and will be, concerns within the business community about the impact of this legislation. By tabling the bill today, the people who are concerned will have adequate time for study and comment in regard to what we have prepared. Provided it is clearly understood that we do not intend to back away from the principles that this legislation represents, we will be willing to listen to any and all constructive suggestions.

I am proud of this bill that will be introduced, and proud of Ontario’s leadership which this bill represents. I am confident that members of all parties in this House will share that pride with me.

NDP LEADER

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have another brief statement to make that may or may not be in order; and I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to reserve your judgement as to whether it is in order until the statement is completed. If you then rule it out of order, I will accept that ruling, but it will be in the record in any event.

Mr. Foulds: Good luck; the Premier should never have made those introductory remarks.

Mr. Nixon: He picked the wrong Speaker.

[10:15]

Hon. Mr. Davis: I thought I would forewarn, Mr. Speaker, that it may not be in order, but I am suggesting some leniency until you’ve heard it and then make that judgement.

Mr. Conway: The Premier breaks the rules with such charm.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, I probably am breaking the rules, but because of the organization of the day, I may not have a chance a little later.

Mr. Speaker, I’m really rising to express, in my own way, best wishes on this, the last legislative day when the member for Scarborough West will be serving his party as its leader. I do so in spite of the fact that maybe later today somebody will try to defeat the government.

Hon. W. Newman: Don’t count on it; they may draft him.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is not my intention to offer either eulogy or hollow praise. He obviously will continue to sit opposite and champion those causes in which he deeply believes, and he will continue to do so with skill and conviction which few, very frankly, can match.

While in political terms his party and mine stand opposed on some goals, and I guess on most methods, in human terms he has often been at one with every Ontarian who has dreams and aspirations for their future. Our political careers have not been precisely parallel or contemporary --

Mr. Lewis: You can say that again.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- in that I am somewhat senior to the hon. member --

Mr. Lewis: And rather more successful.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Just a little bit senior, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mellower.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Both of us are mellowing maybe; I’m not sure. I, for one, will always be proud to say that I served in this Legislature when the hon. member for Scarborough West did, and that I’ve tried to answer questions which emerge from his sense of social justice, his concern for human dignity and his compassion for the less fortunate.

Neither of us has been beyond the politics that we embrace in the service of the two parties that, along with our friends in the Liberal caucus, serve a parliamentary system which remains, in my view at least, the best we know. I have campaigned against him, and I sense he’s campaigned against me, each for different views of how best to serve the people. How the people did, in fact, choose does not convince me that he was always wrong; or that I was completely right, just most of the time. In fact, election results often prove only that no single leader, or any single party, ever has all of the answers.

The leadership he has offered his party has been -- and I say this as a leader of a party -- particularly selfless, particularly noble and particularly decent. If he erred at all, it might have been that he was provocative when he should not have been, and conciliatory when provocation might have helped. That’s very easy for me to say, because I’m never provocative.

Mr. Lewis: That’s true.

Mr. Lawlor: He is never conciliatory.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m always conciliatory.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Always conciliatory.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I wish my friend well, and I speak for our caucus. This province owes him a great deal and I hope that his sense of contribution to public life -- past, present and I sense still in the future -- will always justify that debt.

Mr. S. Smith: I would like to join with the Premier in his very accurate and very gracious remarks and simply to add a few words of my own, if I might, on this occasion.

The fact is that the gentleman who is now stepping down as leader of his party has been, whether he knows it or not, an example to me in my little time that I have spent in this Legislature, and I still have a lot to learn to ever even aspire to catch up to his level of parliamentary ability. He has brought the humanitarian dimension to provincial politics in a way that is very obvious to people throughout the province; and that I particularly want to pay tribute to.

I believe that apart from questions of political party and apart from matters of economic philosophy or whatever, that he has doggedly played one of the most difficult roles for most of his young adult life -- sometimes without any real hope of victory, more recently with real hope of victory. But he has done so obviously because of a belief in what he stood for and for no other reason. That was something that was very clear to everybody, very clear to me when I had little interest in politics and followed his career closely.

He has taught us, I think, how opposition parties should do research; he has taught us how we should question ministries; he has taught us how we should take issues and draw them to the public attention. He has tremendous skill in these ways. Those of us who carry on the same tradition, although in another party, whether we know it or not are following many of the standards which he set in this House.

I personally wish him well. I know he has given up a lot in the prime of his adult life. I wish him well as a private member. I wish him well in his family life, which he will have a little more time for now, and in any career that he undertakes. I know he realizes that we say this with very great sincerity. He has my admiration as a person, as a humanitarian and as a parliamentarian. It has just been a privilege to follow in his shoes as Leader of the Opposition and to learn from him. I wish him well.

Mr. Lewis: Quite simply, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps uncharacteristically, let me say that I love you all, indiscriminately and across every party line. I had hoped, and I hope I am still given the opportunity to respond to some of this and to make some reflections of my own when I am able to wind up the budget debate for my party.

The Premier and the Leader of the Opposition are incredibly generous. They are good friends -- I want to say something about that later on, and I appreciate the avoidance of the past tense.

I do want to stay in this Legislature. I want to barrack and declaim raucously, and with a sense of inspired liberation from somewhere up there where I will be consigned at the appropriate point in time. I want to make life wretched for the government, as they would wish me to do to maintain the consistency. And indeed, before this day is over, when I have the opportunity to move on behalf of my party a no-confidence motion, nothing in the spirit of the chamber at this moment would give me greater pleasure than to help to bring this government down.

Hon. Mr. Davis: But not until after February 3.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

GATT NEGOTIATIONS

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to report to the Legislature on Ontario’s position regarding the current negotiations in Geneva on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, better known as GATT.

I do not have to remind members of this House that Canada is a trading nation. Almost one-quarter of the nation’s GNP is derived from exports, about two-thirds of these being shipped to the US. The Ontario economy is even more dependent on exports, with 29 per cent of our GPP coming from foreign sales, approximately 80 per cent of these to the US. With such a high dependence on foreign trade, it is essential that Canada participate fully in the Geneva negotiations.

Moreover, I would ask you to note our dependence on trade with the US. In the Kennedy round of trade negotiations of 10 years ago, Canada was able to negotiate a special status and did not, therefore, cut tariffs across the board. This time the US Trade Act provides that the US may grant concessions to other nations only if these nations are full participants in the negotiations.

Our position in presenting our views to the federal government is based on the awareness that this province has half of Canada’s manufacturing and two-fifths of its fruit- and vegetable-growing and processing industries. We have a vital stake in these negotiations.

Also, because of our economic position, we will incur the largest portion of any adjustment costs resulting from the lowering of trade or tariff barriers. Indeed, these costs will probably be as substantial as those faced by any other industrial economy. Thus while we are supportive of the federal government’s negotiating team, we are equally concerned that Ontario’s position be stated most clearly.

The core of our submission to the federal government revolves around three major themes: One, the importance to Ontario of the multilateral trade negotiations; two, our concern with the balance of benefits and concessions, or as it is called reciprocity, particularly in view of the sensitivity of a number of Ontario industries to any moves towards lowering trade barriers; and three, the need for appropriate policies to smooth the adjustment period to be formulated and announced before the negotiations are concluded.

We feel these points are essential if we are to minimize the costs of increased competition and achieve the maximum gains from improved access to world markets. In formulating our GATT position, Ontario has had to tread a delicate path between the short-term need to maintain employment and the long-term desirability of an internationally competitive, highly productive industrial structure benefiting all Ontarians, producers as well as consumers.

Clearly, we feel the key requirement for Canada’s negotiators is to obtain reciprocity, not just for the nation as a whole but also for the main regions of this country. For Ontario this must include reciprocity for secondary manufacturing and agriculture. Canada’s negotiators must obtain improved access for Ontario products in the US, the European Economic Community and Japan. Further, they must strive to lower non-tariff barriers if we are to realize any significant benefits from these negotiations.

I would remind this House, Mr Speaker, that Canada’s trade policy is oriented towards the use of tariffs rather than non-tariff barriers. So if Canada’s tariffs are to be lowered while other countries retain their non-tariff barriers, this will be an unacceptable outcome to the negotiations.

Since this is the first round of trade negotiations dealing to any extent with non-tariff barriers, and since many of these barriers are extremely difficult to define, we share concerns which have been expressed by others as to the possible outcome.

However, there are certain areas in which Ontario has considerable interest. For example, Ontario has the potential advantage in supplying professional services -- engineering, systems work, management consulting and so on -- to other industrial countries, but only if tendering procedures abroad can be made more open and fair. Ontario manufacturers could sell more high-technology products to other countries -- products such as heavy electrical, telecommunications and urban transit equipment -- if restrictive procurement and unfair subsidy practices could he eliminated.

However, should progress in reducing non-tariff barriers be limited, Canadians will, I suggest, be increasingly inclined themselves to consider other means of protection as permitted by GATT.

In our submission to the federal negotiators we have also pointed out that should there be limited progress in reducing these non-tariff barriers, reciprocity for Ontario’s manufacturing will have to come from within the tariff plan itself. This we see as being extremely difficult to achieve.

The tariff-cutting formula under discussion is structured so that higher tariffs are to be cut by greater amounts than lower tariffs will be cut. Canada, as a nation with relatively high tariffs, would therefore suffer the greatest cuts.

We have suggested that in order to achieve reciprocity in the tariff plan, the federal negotiators will have to negotiate the following:

[10:30]

One, a substantial number of exceptions to the tariff-cutting formula in order that average reductions in Canadian tariffs will not exceed the reductions in foreign tariffs faced by Canadian exports. Moreover, those Canadian industries which rely upon tariff protection for viability and have some prospect of further growth and development, must continue to enjoy an appropriate measure of protection.

Two, maximum credit for voluntary tariff reductions where the actual Canadian rate is currently lower than the formally agreed GATT rate. For example, in 1973 Canada unilaterally reduced the tariff on certain consumer products such as tableware, vacuum cleaners and bathtubs from 20 to 15 per cent. Canada should be entitled to full credit for those reductions.

Three, a number of key Ontario exports to the US face US tariffs which are less than 10 per cent. According to the current tariff-cutting formula these tariffs would be reduced only marginally. Greater than formula reductions must be secured if appropriate benefits are to be realized.

Four, in high-technology products such as communications, heavy electrical and urban transit equipment, where non-tariff barriers are the main obstacles to freer trade, Canadian tariff cuts must be linked to foreign non-tariff barrier concessions.

Five, effective seasonal protection and conversion to ad valorem -- that is a percentage of value rather than cents per pound -- tariff rates for Ontario’s horticulture industry must be secured. For example, the present duties on most fruits and vegetables are one or two cents per pound, with the level of protection diminishing as prices rise. An ad valorem duty of 10 to 15 per cent, say, would provide Ontario’s farmers with greater assurance of a continuing domestic market.

If these tariff negotiating objectives are met, then there will be increased opportunities for Ontario firms to expand production and increase exports in their most competitive lines. This, in effect, will help offset the losses they will likely incur because of more effective import competition.

However, it would be a serious mistake to assume that these opportunities will be easily realized. As far as the medium-term outlook is concerned, economists are forecasting slower growth both in Canada and abroad into the early 1980s. Because of this, we have made it clear to the federal negotiators that a deliberate and co-operative effort must be made to implement the policies and programs required for a successful adjustment to international specialization before any agreement to lower trade barriers is concluded.

Our key recommendations to the federal government regarding adjustment policies relate to: One, the improvement in confidence in the investment climate; two, continued restraint in the public sector in areas of both taxation and expenditures; three, increased support for industrial innovation and product development; four, the restructuring of certain government policies, programs and regulations affecting industry; five, the establishment of industry sector committees to aid in the identification of problems which industries may encounter during the adjustment period; six, more rapid and effective domestic recourse against unfair foreign trade practices; and seven, increased consultation among various industry and agriculture groups, as well as among the various provinces and the federal government.

We believe that any further erosion of the economic strengths of Canada must be ended now through greater co-operation among all levels of government. There must also be a greater effort made to harmonize technical standards and provincial procurement practices throughout this country.

In the course of assembling our position, Ontario officials have had extensive consultation with industry and agriculture associations and with other provinces. The Treasurer of Ontario (Mr. McKeough), the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman), and I, along with other provincial ministers, have met with our federal counterparts and will be meeting next Monday with the federal ministers of the Ontario ridings. Such meetings will continue to take place as required during the coming months.

As well, throughout the process there have been substantial discussions with the federal government and with the Canadian delegation in Geneva.

We expect these consultations will continue and intensify during the coming months as the negotiations move into more detailed phases. Senior Ontario officials will be meeting with their federal counterparts in both Ottawa and Geneva on a regular basis to ensure that Ontario’s interests and concerns are effectively communicated to the Canadian negotiating team.

I would like to make it perfectly clear to the members of this House that Ontario associates itself totally with the overall Canadian objective being pursued in Geneva. At the same time we have registered very clearly our concerns and indicated areas in the negotiations where we feel that a strong stand must be taken, not just in Ontario’s interest but in the interests of the nation as a whole. While we look forward to new opportunities for Ontario industries as a result of lower trade barriers in Canada and abroad, we are not prepared to see these achieved at the price of irreparable damage to Ontario’s secondary manufacturing and agriculture.

Reciprocity -- a fair bargain -- is what Canada will strive to achieve in Geneva. I offer to this House the assurance that Ontario fully intends to lend its support to help Ottawa reach those goals on behalf of this nation.

Mr. Roy: Who wrote that for the minister?

Mr. Cassidy: He doesn’t sound very sure.

Mr. Roy: Last week he told me that GATT was an insect.

Mr. Warner: I notice the Treasurer didn’t reply.

ENERGY REPORT

Hon. J. A. Taylor: On May 23 of this year I announced, along with my colleagues, the Minister of Agriculture and Food and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. F. S. Miller), the start of a major energy-related initiative to determine the feasibility of using reject heat from Ontario Hydro’s Bruce generating station.

A detailed economic and engineering study has been undertaken by Ontario Hydro and independent consultants to examine the feasibility of using the moderator cooling water at Bruce for greenhouse heating and aquacultural purposes. I am pleased today to table a

summary report of the findings of this study for the information of members of the Legislature and the general public. A more detailed report is being printed and will be available next week.

The study confirms that substantial savings of more than 50 per cent in greenhouse heating costs can be achieved using reject heat instead of conventional oil or gas furnaces.

Mr. Kerrio: There should have never been reject heat.

Mr. Foulds: In the new Legislature, this minister is going to be a reject minister.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: It looks at the economic and technical feasibility of greenhouse development in the area. The study also confirms the technical feasibility of developing a fish hatchery and/or fish-farming operation.

The project provides an opportunity for the greenhouse vegetable industry to meet the challenge of rapidly rising fuel costs and competition from imports, both of which have placed the industry in serious economic difficulty. The potential for fish culture would also allow the expansion of efficient production of fish in Ontario and improve prospects for commercial fishing and sports fishing industries.

I am pleased to record the enthusiastic support which we have received from the local municipalities and from the county of Bruce; I know there is a strong interest in the region to see this concept become a reality, and I welcome this contribution to its development.

When I announced the start of this project, I noted it would involve major opportunities for the private sector in the design, construction, ownership, financing and operation of suitable facilities to make use of the reject heat available from Ontario Hydro generating stations. We are particularly interested in receiving the response of the existing operators in the greenhouse and aquacultural industry. Arrangements are being made to consult with them over the next few weeks.

Copies of this report are also being made available to other organizations, such as banks and energy companies, which may be potential investors in such a project. In addition, steps will be taken to allow the residents and businesses in the area an adequate opportunity for review of the project and its implications for their communities.

The project offers a major investment and employment opportunity for the agricultural and aquacultural industries in Ontario. At the same time, it improves the efficient utilization of valuable energy resources. Similar projects to utilize reject heat are being actively considered by local officials for communities adjacent to Ontario Hydro’s scheduled Darlington and Atikokan generating stations, and I have offered the support of my ministry to the communities concerned. Energy today, whatever the source, is too valuable a commodity to waste. Every effort must be made to achieve maximum use of energy and energy byproducts, wherever feasible.

The ministries of Energy and Agriculture and Food are also involved in energy-saving projects for existing greenhouse operations, using renewable energy and energy conservation measures developed co-operatively with a representative commercial grower. I look forward to a positive response to this initiative.

ALUMINUM WIRING

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have two statements this morning. The first is on the matter of the aluminum wiring commission. Due to the government’s grave concern and the public’s grave concern over the whole matter of safety of aluminum wiring, I have approached Dr. Tuzo Wilson, the chairman of the aluminum wiring inquiry.

As members know, I do not think it appropriate to interfere with the day-to-day conduct and procedures of a commission. However, because of our concern, I have asked Dr. Wilson to complete his report as soon as possible. Dr. Wilson’s original target was September 1978 for a report. Due to our concerns, he has agreed to report to me no later than April 1978.

This will place a considerable burden on Dr. Wilson and his staff. I do appreciate his co-operation and the personal sacrifices this may entail. Both his concern and ours, for the people affected, led him to agree to this accelerated schedule.

Mr. Warner: Get Hydro to fix up the problems in the meantime.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Just relax.

Mr. Kerrio: You’d better get them to ban the wire, Larry. The cameras aren’t running yet.

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I have already distributed the long-awaited copies of the Ontario Residential Condominium Study Group to members of the opposition who have expressed a key interest in its recommendations, and as well to the critics.

Mr. Cassidy: You are presenting it for Christmas. You waited until the very last minute so it would die over the Christmas season.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have done that specifically before question period today so that we wouldn’t be subject to the accusation we waited until after question period -- which the orders of the day would ordinarily call for -- before tabling the report. As the members listening will know, there were delays entailed which ordinarily would have deferred the report from being tabled at all before the end of this session.

Mr. Speaker, we have not been able to review the report in depth but are distributing it now to interested groups and individuals to enable them to examine it at the same time as our own study of the recommendations is going on.

From my preliminary reading of it, I’m pleased to note that the report has taken a pro-consumers’ stance. In fact, it recommends major changes to the Condominium Act and other legislation to protect the rights of condominium owners in Ontario.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s what we said two years ago.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, but these are sensible.

There are a total of 126 recommendations covering everything from municipal policies and services to condominium insurance, management and taxation.

Although we have made no decisions yet as to implementation, I would like to outline a few of the recommendations:

Recommendations one to four would set up an entirely new approval process which would, in essence, call for all conditions, standards and levies to be determined prior to the issuance of a building permit. Further, powers would be given to the municipalities to impose necessary development conditions rather than require a condominium development proposal to go through the Ministry of Housing by a subdivision process a second time.

Warranties: Recommendation seven suggests that warranties required by builders on materials and work performed by tradesmen should he transferred to the condominium corporation.

Insurance: Recommendations 35 and 38 ask that the condominium corporation be given the right and the obligation to insure the entire property. Now corporations usually have the responsibility to repair the entire property but don’t have the legal status to insure against this potential liability.

Application of the Act: Recommendation 46 suggests the Condominium Act be amended to include a general provision that consumers cannot sign away or waive their rights under the Act.

Rescission: Recommendation 47 provides that prospective buyers should have 10 clear days after receiving all documents required by statute to cancel the agreement to purchase without penalties.

Binding contracts: Recommendation 62 suggests that if the developers’ board signs a contract on behalf of the condominium project, it will only apply for 18 months unless the condominium corporation ratifies it.

Reserve funds: Recommendations 89 and 92 suggest a trust fund for the replacement of major capital items deposited with a chartered bank or trust company in a trust account separate from the condominium corporation operating accounts. The recommendation is that the Condominium Act should be amended to ensure that the trust accounts are in the name of the condominium corporation.

[10:45]

Cost of repairs: This is covered in recommendation 91. If a unit owner does not pay the condominium corporation for repairs carried out on a particular unit, the corporation should be allowed to treat this unpaid bill as an arrears in common expenses. The money then becomes collectable by way of a lien.

Registrar of condominiums: Recommendation 107 calls for the establishment of the office of the registrar of condominiums under my ministry. The registrar would administer the Condominium Act and ensure that the rights of condominium owners in Ontario are protected.

Dispute resolution: Recommendation 115 would provide a two-tiered system for dispute resolution composed of local bearing officers and a tribunal. Administrative responsibility for such a system would rest with the registrar.

As a result of these and other recommendations, the Condominium Act could become much more than a set of regulations, passing instead into the realm of broadly based consumer protection legislation. Purchasing a condominium home is much more complex than buying a single-family dwelling. In addition to normal offer-to-purchase agreements, buyers must also review and understand such things as bylaws, rules and regulations, management agreements and budget statements. In addition to the complexity of the issue surrounding the purchase of a condominium, we have to look at the scope of the condominium market.

With an estimated 1,000 condominium corporations and 100,000 individual condominium units in Ontario at this time, the recommendations of this report can affect the lives of more than a quarter of a million people, with more to come as new developments come on stream.

Mr. Speaker, because of the wide scope of the recommendations, I believe a new Condominium Act will result. Because of its importance to condominium owners, I would like to have the Act drafted for introduction in the spring of next year.

The report is being widely distributed to condominium corporations, associations and other interested parties. I hope they will study it carefully and provide me with written responses by the end of January. I would prefer a longer period of public review, but the importance of the new Act’s effect on present and future condominium owners necessitates swift action. On the other hand, there has already been extensive consultation and more than 250 briefs have been received from interested parties.

Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that those who reply to this report will address their comments directly to the recommendations and their implementation. Repeating earlier arguments and positions would slow development of a new consumer-oriented Condominium Act and would not be in the best interests of those most affected -- the Ontario condominium owners.

I would like to read into the record, Mr. Speaker, the names of the six individuals who worked very diligently to conduct this study and to compile the comprehensive document which the hon. members have before them. They are R. L. Radford and Dianne Santo of the Ministry of Housing; Angus MacKay of the Ministry of Revenue; Marcia Sypnawich of TEIGA; Audrey Loeb Burns of my own ministry, and, finally Darwin Kealey who so ably, through a difficult period of time, chaired the study group.

At my request, Mr. Kealey has found time in his busy day today to make himself available outside the House after question period to answer any questions that the press and others may have.

On behalf of my ministry and the study group, I wish to thank all of those who participated in the consultation process and assure the House that the report will be dealt with expeditiously by my ministry.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO TRANSFORMER FIRE

Mr. S. Smith: Before I start, Mr. Speaker, is it the intention of the Minister of the Environment to respond on the point of privilege raised earlier before this House rises?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member could ask a question. I didn’t hear the point of privilege that was raised by the hon. member.

Mr. S. Smith: Well, I am not going to argue much about whether it should be a question or not. I will basically reiterate. If you rule it’s a question, Mr. Speaker, I will accept your ruling.

For the benefit of the minister, I drew the attention of the House a little earlier to what I believe to be very fundamental contradictions between the statements which the minister made in the House yesterday and the facts as they appear to be emerging. The first statement of the minister, to which I referred, and to which with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will refer again, is his statement: “Hydro knows full well the steps that have to be taken and the information that should be given to the firemen when they arrive at the scene.” That was the first statement.

One John Smith, the platoon chief at the Adelaide Street fire hall, was the senior fire department official at the scene of the fire. He was contacted at 5:30 p.m. yesterday. He says he asked for the Hydro man in charge of the site and was told by a person there that the fire involved a new type of inflammable liquid used in the transformer, but he was not told that the material had any toxic qualities.

This was confirmed by Mr. Goyette, the assistant manager of the power service department for Toronto Hydro, who in today’s Globe and Mail is quoted as saying: “Toronto Hydro has no contingency plans for such emergencies involving transformer fires containing PCBs.”

The second point of apparent contradiction which I brought to the attention of the House is that the minister told us yesterday: “We advised all the employees and the firemen of what was involved here and what precautions should be taken. That information was given on the scene.” The leader of the New Democratic Party asked, “To whom?” and the minister said: “To the Hydro employees and to the firemen. That information was passed immediately by our people from central region who attended on the scene at about 1 to 1:30 p.m. that day.”

Mr. John Smith again says he was on the scene until the last firefighter left at approximately 11 a.m. and perhaps before that. In other words, the last firefighter left at least two hours before the Ministry of the Environment officials were on the scene. He, Mr. John Smith, was not aware yesterday at 5:30 p.m. of any particular dangers connected with the fire. He took no special precautions with respect to his clothing or equipment. This was confirmed by Fire Chief Bonser who said, and I quote from the Globe and Mail again: “His men weren’t informed about the health hazards of PCBs until they read about it in the Globe.”

The remaining contradiction was dealt with by the Minister of Labour where, I point out, before the Minister of the Environment’s arrival she said she had been informed that the site had been entirely cleaned at this point -- that was during yesterday’s question period -- where the minister must now know that the removal of soot covering the building would not even begin until last night.

The points which are therefore raised, are: First of all, why was this House given information which appears to have been totally incorrect? Furthermore, why was there a lack of a Hydro contingency plan? Why was a fire that occurred at 7 a.m. not attended to until 1 p.m. by the people from Environment? Why were no attempts made to inform the firemen, the Hydro employees, the employees working in the building or passers-by of possible dangers? Why the delay in the clean-up? Why has it taken so many days before the clean-up has even been begun and when will it be completed?

Basically, why would the minister stand in this House and speak with such apparent confidence about events which allegedly transpired at the scene of such an important event and yet be proven to have been totally wrong in the statements he made in this House?

The question is, was he merely inadvertently misinforming the House; or was he himself seriously misinformed by his own officials, in which case may I remind the House of the almost frivolous question about ministerial responsibility we heard about yesterday from the Premier and his back-bench members?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, first of all, when I mentioned that Hydro knows full well the procedure that is necessary in the handling of toxic material of that kind, I referred to Hydro generally. Certainly Ontario Hydro and the whole system, along with Monsanto, have disseminated material and information dealing with PCBs to all of the utilities. This information has been given now for a number of years on how to handle PCBs in the event of any type of emergency.

The hon. member is correct when he says there wasn’t an effective contingency plan in operation when our people arrived there. That is true, and certainly the procedure will have to be improved in the future. But this information has been given by Hydro in co-operation with our ministry, and I would assume that wherever there is a transformer or equipment of that kind containing that type of liquid, all people are informed. I would think possibly that in some way the material or the equipment itself should be better identified.

Mr. Wildman: Yesterday you were going to sue them.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: But certainly contingency plans and information have been disseminated to Hydro.

The hon. member asked why our people only arrived on the scene around 1 o’clock. The fact is they were only advised of this fire a few minutes before that period. It’s not possible for the employees of the Ministry of the Environment to know every type of fire that may be going on in this area or in the province. It is the law that, in a situation like that, the Hydro employees should have immediately informed our ministry, knowing that a PCB liquid could be a part of the emergency resulting from that fire.

My information yesterday regarding the firemen was wrong and I apologize for that. I apologize for that.

Mr. Lewis: Why did you do it?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The information I received yesterday was that there was still one or two firemen at the scene when our people arrived, and that they were informed that certain contingency plans, certain clean-up operations, must take place immediately.

Mr. Deans: Who gave you that information?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: That was information from within my ministry. I really don’t know who that particular person was.

Mr. Lewis: You made it sound as though --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. All members will have an opportunity for supplementary questions.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: But you can understand in an emergency of that kind that there would be some confusion.

Mr. Wildman: You are responsible for your ministry.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: But as far as the Hydro employees were concerned, of course they were on the scene, and it was there that they assisted our people and D&D Disposal to clean up the operation. You must remember that this fire took place in an underground station or a pit under the sidewalk, not in the building. It was then immediately that our people went into that pit to contain the PCB liquid that had flowed from the transformer.

When I indicated that yesterday regarding completion, I had been told earlier this week the operation was completed, the clean-up of the liquid and the material and the containment of the soot in that area had been completed and it was on its way to New York for disposal.

As far as the soot on the building and the clean-up or the restoration of the building are concerned, it was indicated to me yesterday that the work would be completed yesterday. But because of the danger to pedestrians from the operations going on -- the spraying et cetera that would go on to clean that building -- it was felt this operation should be carried on at night when there aren’t the same number of people walking around in front of that building.

Mr. Warner: They should have closed the street.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I think that was probably a wise decision.

Mr. Wildman: Why didn’t you close the street?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The information yesterday was that if the men had started yesterday morning and were able to work right through, it was expected to be cleaned up yesterday. The operation was expected to be complete. I regret any remarks I made that would indicate it was completed yesterday at the time I made the statement at around 4:30 or 5.

So I did not attempt to mislead the House. There is always a certain amount of confusion resulting from a fire of this kind. It’s regrettable that there is criticism of my ministry, because my ministry acted with dispatch and efficiency as soon as it was notified. It took control of the scene. It had the disposal company there cleaning up the operation, and, of course, it is still there assisting in the restoration of that building and the cleaning up of any soot.

I think it’s important to keep this in perspective. I’m not saying that certain reports are exaggerating the situation, but my people feel that there is no danger to health from any vapourization of PCBs.

Mr. Lewis: How do they know?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: This is the information we’re getting now and we’re working with occupational health.

Mr. Lewis: From whom? There is no study -- there is nothing.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: That’s right. It’s not complete. The information, the testing that was going on there and the analysis of the soot will continue --

Mr. Deans: I hope it isn’t the same person who gave you the information yesterday.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- so that we can complete any preliminary examination so we’re exactly satisfied of whatever statistics or criteria will come out of that examination.

[11:00]

I am not sure what other questions the hon. member had. All I want to say is that my ministry officials acted with dispatch. The right people were there. There is no question that in a situation like that the firemen, I understand, do have instructions and there is information regarding the handling of contaminants in their literature.

Probably the most unfortunate fact here is the delay in calling our people in, and there is a breach there, because where there is any danger of a spill or exposure to PCB-contaminated material we have an emergency phone number that is supposed to be called regardless of where or when it happens.

Mr. S. Smith: The minister then agrees that in point of fact he inadvertently misadvised the House yesterday, and I can understand that he feels, Mr. Speaker, he was himself poorly advised by his officials. However, this was not a fire that occurred yesterday. He surely had sufficient time to make sure he knew all the facts of this matter, a potentially serious matter which may or may not turn out to be a health hazard, and we pray it turns not not to be, but we don’t know.

Given the fact that he had enough time to check on this, how can he come before this House and tell us there is a Hydro contingency plan when apparently there is not? How can he justify the fact that the fireman we spoke to, who was the senior man on the scene, had still not been told but had to read in the Globe and Mail of the fact that there may have been a hazard to himself, and he still has not had his equipment and gear and clothing looked at?

How can he justify the Fact that he finds himself at a loss for what the real facts are, with no contingency plan, with nobody that his officials even talked to when they got to the scene, because there were no firemen there? How, days later, could he still not be properly informed about what happened at a potentially serious event?

Mrs. Campbell: It’s called ministerial responsibility.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Something the member For St. George (Mrs. Campbell) will never have.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must realize it is a Hydro contingency plan. Hydro is not under my ministry. Hydro happens to own equipment which contains PCBs. Hydro has the rules and regulations to be followed under our legislation regarding the disposal of old equipment or spent equipment containing PCBs. Ontario Hydro has advised the utilities -- that is my information -- about how to handle material of that kind in an emergency, whether it is a spill, an accident, a fire, or what have you.

If Hydro, or a hydro station, or Toronto Hydro, or any other municipal utility of that nature does not have a contingency plan then there should be one, but certainly the information is available to all hydro stations. We have made it plain what can result if there is not proper handling and containment of an accident of that kind. I suppose we should probably have people going around inspecting this or having questionnaires distributed to employees of Hydro, but we have left that responsibility to Hydro.

As far as the disposal of PCB-contaminated material is concerned, they have been doing it correctly, so that is all I can say about a situation like that. Certainly this situation will improve matters in the future. There is no question about that. There will be contingency plans. If there is any question about people fighting those fires, the firemen themselves will have to be aware on the spot of situations like that. They carry their equipment. They have all the preventive equipment that is necessary. I would expect they would use it, but in a situation like that the firemen should be advised immediately they arrive on the scene.

Mr. Deans: By whom?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: By the people who own the building; the Hydro people; the people who rang the alarm, whoever is there; the workmen there, who were in that pit.

Mr. Deans: Why did they know?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We’ve been 16 minutes on the original question and one supplementary --

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Hydro should know, and the employees should know.

Mr. S. Smith: You have had five days to advise them. Why didn’t you?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Well, I would assume they were advised. My information is still that they were advised, even before the press release. However, if they were not advised, that again should be corrected. But I think the important thing is that they be advised when they arrive on the scene before the damage can take place, not three or four days after. That is where the real fault is here -- the late arrival of my people, and trying to salvage and clean up after, when they should have been there right from the start. That’s the only thing I can say and that is the type of thing that has to be corrected in the future.

Mr. Riddell: You’d better bring Everett Biggs back into that ministry.

Mr. Lewis: The minister is right, something has to be done to clean up. May I ask him a two-part supplementary, as briefly as I can.

Since there doesn’t seem to be any knowledge available from the existing literature about what might happen to human health in the event of short dramatic exposure at a level of up to 10,000 parts per million -- the only parallel being the ingestion over a short period of time in Japan, but then at only 2,000 parts per million; never anything on record as high as this -- why has this ministry not yet dealt with the workers in the building, beyond Hydro and the firemen -- the workers in the building who were subjected to considerable smoke and vapour inhalation during the course of the fire itself?

Secondly, since the minister had a member of his staff and a member of the Ministry of Health’s staff and a member of the Ministry of Natural Resources’ staff sitting on the federal task force on PCBs which reported on April 1, 1976, why has the minister not moved to provide an alternative to the PCB liquid in the transformers which that report indicated was a significant and continuing hazard?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I think first of all that the hon. member shouldn’t make analogies that may, in some way, exaggerate or indicate a type of situation that doesn’t exist. The short, dramatic exposure that the hon. member refers to is exposure to PCBs that may be contained in the soot. That’s a lot different from ingestion, as talked about in Japan, at two parts per million, a great deal different.

Mr. Lewis: You can breathe it.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: It’s over a long period of time, of consumption of fish, that there is a danger.

Mr. Lewis: No, it wasn’t.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: That is the information that we have.

Mr. Lewis: Well then, you had better go back again.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: That is our information regarding the situation in Ontario or the situation in Japan. It is in eating contaminated fish over a prolonged period of time that the real danger lies.

Mr. Lewis: Excuse me, on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It had nothing to do with fish. It was rice, rice that was soiled with the PCB content, and it wasn’t a prolonged period of time. There may not be an analogy, but it is not on the basis of the facts the minister has been given.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: All right. Mr. Speaker, there is no question, as I said yesterday, that the workers who were involved were in that underground station that may be exposed to the PCBs and should be examined. There should be a health examination right now.

Mr. Deans: When?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Right now. That can be done by Hydro, or it can be done by our occupational health people.

Mr. Warner: It hasn’t started.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: We have indicated in information to Hydro that that should be done. We understand, for example, the firemen will be examined. They are doing that on their own volition. And the same should be done with Hydro.

Mr. Foulds: It should be immediate. It should be systematic.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The other point I want to make is regarding the task force. As I have indicated many times before, PCBs will be banned. Importation of PCBs will be banned through the federal Environmental Contaminants Act. The problem right now is to find a safe alternative, and that hasn’t been found. They are working on that but it hasn’t been found. It is my feeling, and I have made this submission to the minister on a number of occasions, that we should now bring in a regulation under that federal legislation to ban PCBs as of, say, January 1, 1979, or the end of next year or something like that, so that the industry knows we are serious and that they have to find an alternative.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, could I get up on a point of order, please? In view of the fact that close to 20 minutes was taken on this question, most of it on statements by the minister and on points of privilege raised yesterday and then again today -- which should have gone in actually as a form of statement -- isn’t it fair to say that some time should be added to the question period and that the members here should not be penalized for the fact that he was late?

Mr. Speaker: It is unfortunate that the minister was not here when the hon. Leader of the Opposition raised this point of privilege. There were five minutes for the Leader of the Opposition to reiterate his point of privilege by way of question and another five minutes for the hon. minister to respond to the initial question. I will add five minutes to the question period.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I certainly regret the length of time that was involved.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

Mr. S. Smith: I will ask my second question of the Minister of Education and it is on a topic that the Treasurer attempted to answer yesterday. I must say I did not quite grasp his answer at that time.

The Teachers’ Superannuation Fund and the comments of the Provincial Auditor in his most recent report regarding that: Does the minister agree, first of all, that the Provincial Auditor has reported that there was an obligation to place $144 million, more or less, plus some back payment of $65.9 million, into the fund just for the purpose of dealing with the annual payments required to amortize the unfunded liability?

If he agrees with that which appears to be in the report and if he will agree that that adds up to approximately $210 million -- can he tell us, please, whether he put that full $210 million into the fund for this year and, if so, by what route, since the only payments to the fund that we seem to be able to track down are the supplementary estimates of $102 million and the original $105 million which are apparently matching contributions, having nothing to do with the amortization of the unfunded liability? Can he tell me, please, did he put in the $210 million and if so, by what route?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest that my friend put that question on the order paper so we can have it properly analysed and answered. All I can say to him is that the members of his caucus were at the committee the other day when we debated the supplementary estimates. It was all explained very clearly. We are putting into the Teachers’ Superannuation Fund everything that we are legally required by law to put in and that we were required in the form of matching payments to put in under the arrangements of the plan.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how to take this type of answer. The fact is that there is some obligation reported on by the Provincial Auditor, given the fact that there is that obligation of $210 million and that we, on this side of the House, have seen estimates for only $102 million.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Put it on the order paper.

Mr. S. Smith: I asked where the rest of the money has come from and how he and his friend the Treasurer have managed to come up with the $108 million, by what route? Is this some Management Board order? Is this some type of secret deal? Where does the money come from?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: You are over your head.

Mr. Roy: We know we are getting to you when you wake up.

Mr. Cassidy: The mountain is rumbling.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, we debated this for an hour and it was indicated that all the money that had to be put into the fund this year will be put in. If my friend would like to put the question on the order paper we will give him a completely documented written answer. But I can assure him, the money that has to be put into the fund by law is being put into the fund.

Mr. S. Smith: My final supplementary, if I might, since we are not going to get an answer: can the minister tell us --

Mr. Speaker: Order. If you don’t expect to get an answer, you cannot ask the question.

Mr. S. Smith: I live in hope, Mr. Speaker. I live in hope.

Mr. Speaker: The minister has suggested that if you want a more detailed response that you put it on the order paper and that is quite a legitimate request for the minister to make. I think any further supplementary is inappropriate.

[11:15]

Mr. S. Smith: To put the question on the order paper properly, I would want to know first of all whether this money that he says is being put into the fund is what he’s now including in money which will allegedly be part of the new rewriting of the Edmonton commitment? Will it have to be met entirely out of property taxes? Is that the lump sum that the minister is now putting on to his new

interpretation of the Edmonton commitment, so that property taxpayers are going to have to do it for him, and if not, where’s the money coming from?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, my friend is confusing two things completely.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: He certainly is. He needs a good holiday.

Hon. Mr. Wells: There’s been no suggestion under the Edmonton commitment or from anything that this government has said that anything concerned with the payments to the Teachers’ Superannuation Fund would be transferred from the government to the property taxpayer at the municipal level.

Mr. Swart: No, you’ll just reduce it from the grants.

Mr. S. Smith: Which you have done.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That has never been done and it has not been suggested.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The Leader of the Opposition is so mixed up. He needs a good holiday; he really does.

An hon. member: The Treasurer has got a long one coming.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the member want a response?

An hon. member: Put it on the order paper.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The Treasurer has indicated that although we are paying it and there is no suggestion that this cost be transferred to the municipal property taxpayer --

Mr. S. Smith: Just subtract it from your grants. That’s all.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- surely my friend understands the system enough to know that is a payment on behalf of the employees of a municipal agency by this government and could quite legitimately be counted as part of the support this government gives to local government.

Mr. S. Smith: Sure it can. Just subtract it from their grants.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Certainly.

LAYOFF OF NICKEL WORKERS

Mr. Germa: A question of the Premier: Is he aware of, and does he appreciate, the mood of anger and frustration present in the Sudbury basin as a result of the announced layoffs at Inco and Falconbridge? This feeling is so intense that it motivated 30,000 Sudbury citizens to sign cards petitioning the Premier to take action to alleviate the layoffs.

I would ask the Premier to respond to the demands enunciated by these 30,000 signatures:

1. Government action to force Inco and Falconbridge to rescind the layoffs;

2. An end to tax concessions to industries which are not tied to new jobs for Canadian workers;

3. An industrial strategy that will provide for diversification of the northern economy with a dynamic manufacturing sector tied to the resource base.

How does the Premier respond to those?

Hon. Mr. Davis: At the outset I would like to say to the hon. member that I appreciated when he gave me, in a very relaxed sort of setting last evening, not notice of the question but notice that he had something which be construed as a Christmas present. I see what he wants to give me and I would suggest, for the convenience of the pages, that he not have it all transferred immediately to my desk; when I have answered the question or -- he wants me to have these petitions -- perhaps when the House prorogues he could ask the pages to take them directly to my office; it would save some measure of effort.

Mr. Laughren: Will you answer the questions?

Mr. Cassidy: Will you answer them?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I obviously can’t answer all of them by Christmas.

Mr. Laughren: You’ve got a big enough staff.

Hon. Mr. Davis: In that the hon. member was kind enough once again to give me the one he has signed personally, I will attempt to draft a reply and send it to the hon. member, who in turn might circulate that reply to all of those who have submitted these petitions from his constituency.

Mr. Wildman: You have been talking about industrial strategy for almost 10 years.

Mr. Martel: You have the names and addresses. We don’t.

Mr. Warner: It would involve about 100 of your staff.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I listen to the hon. member for Scarborough-Ellesmere. Does he want me to add 100 to the staff to reply? Is that what he wants?

Mr. Warner: No, the Premier should just use the 100 he’s got sitting around.

Mr. Roy: Give Darwin Kealey the job.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Premier will ignore the interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: In reply to the three suggestions in the petition, I have already stated our concern. I think I can sense the frustration that is being felt in the Sudbury area at this time. The government, with the support of the members opposite, of course, has established the select committee, which has now had its period of time extended to bring back any suggestions that might be worthwhile for consideration by the House when we meet in February.

Dealing with the second part of the question, that could lead me into a very lengthy discussion, and I think I sense what the hon. member is suggesting. I would only say that we have to be very careful, in discussing this issue with the public, that there isn’t a misunderstanding. While the hon. member may disagree with certain tax policies that exist here, I would only say to him that they are related to our desire to see the economy of this province continue to grow. I think the tax policy that currently exists is in the interests of the people of Sudbury. The hon. member may disagree with this, but we happen to believe that it is.

On the third point, the question of an industrial strategy to locate more secondary industry in northeastern and northwestern Ontario, of course, the government supports this as fully as the hon. member.

Mr. Cassidy: You don’t do anything about it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is not as easy to accomplish. We’ve discussed this before.

Mr. Cassidy: You’ve had 33 years.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The hon. member can assure his constituents, those who sent those petitions through him to me, that we certainly agree with the third point that is in the petition; and he may take that message home over the Christmas holiday period.

I can’t help but observe, Mr. Speaker, that quite obviously the hon. member and his constituents didn’t have total confidence in the mail system. I assume these were all delivered to the hon. member and he, in his own inimitable fashion, carried them by hand here to Queen’s Park. I want to compliment him for that singular accomplishment. If he would bear with me and transfer them directly to my office, it might save a lot of this paper passing back and forth here in the House.

Mr. Germa: I will certainly take the Premier’s advice, but it was a demand upon me by the signatories to the petition that I do this in the public forum.

My supplementary is, does the Premier understand the level of anger in the community and is there a connection between this anger in the community and the two transformer stations which were blasted last week by dynamite?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Perhaps the hon. member could tell me whether there is any such connection.

Mr. Turner: Tell us.

Mr. Germa: There is.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, is the Premier aware of the federal government interdepartmental report which states the following: “The relative importance at Inco’s Sudbury operations comes into question when one considers that Inco has recently been bypassing the low-grade ores in favour of the higher-grade ores in the Sudbury area. The company either mines around these low-grade ore bodies or uses them as mine fill”?

Is the Premier aware of that study? When is he going to move and intervene in a meaningful way to protect the non-renewable resources of this province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I find some slight contradiction in that question. If the hon. member is saying we should intervene to protect the non-renewable resources, I think that is in some way a contradiction to the desire on the part of members opposite, and certainly to the desire on the part of the government, to see that these resources are better utilized, that people are put back to work --

Mr. Foulds: Exactly. That is the point he is making.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and that Inco and Falconbridge secure the markets and, as a result, provide employment for the people of that area.

I think there is a basic contradiction in what the hon. member states in his question. I am not familiar with the federal document, no. I will bring it to the attention of the chairman of that cabinet committee, who also happens to be the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. F. S. Miller).

Mr. Martel: A supplementary: Since the Premier says he is interested in providing jobs in the mining sector, is he aware that for the past 10 or 12 years the production in the mining field has increased by 44.5 per cent while the number of people working in that industry has declined more than six per cent? How do those statistics indicate this government is worried about jobs when, in fact, the production almost doubles and the number of workers declines?

Mr. Laughren: Thanks to the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier).

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has highlighted one of the problems that a society like ours is faced with. The member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) could ask the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman) exactly the same question. He could say to the Minister of Agriculture and Food, “How come the farmers of this province, who as a percentage of the total or in total numbers are less today than they were 10 years ago, are none the less producing two, three and four times the amount of food?”

Mr. Laughren: It is a silly analogy.

Mr. Riddell: I have a question I am going to ask the minister.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member will get his turn later.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s productivity.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The member for Sudbury East doesn’t want productivity.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Perhaps he doesn’t want to see these industries competitive. I am just very thankful that Inco and Falconbridge are competitive in the world marketplace.

Mr. Martel: What about the secondary industry? That is the problem.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, come on. The member is changing his tune.

Mr. Martel: No, I am not. It shows the government has nothing to take its place.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: If the Premier’s government is, in fact, interested in meeting the third demand outlined in the petition, why it it that the Ministry of Industry and Tourism over the last 10 years has emphasized the development of tertiary service industries that supply low-paying seasonal jobs and has had its major concentration in the north in that area, rather than emphasizing the development of secondary manufacturing industries based on the resources in the north? Does the government have concrete plans at this stage to reverse that priority?

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, if the member is talking about the north, the northeast and the northwest, I would think the government’s commitment has been clearly demonstrated. He should be more aware of this than anyone in this House, with the exception of the hon. member who lives next door and who is aware of it, because the rather significant industrial plant, which is in secondary manufacturing, in Thunder Bay. It has been given a most significant contract by this government, both in the short term and long term.

That is a clear indication of this government’s commitment to secondary industry in northern Ontario. If he thinks his constituents don’t believe that, I suggest he should go home for Christmas and say to his constituents he is not interested in that contract and that he really feels Hawker Siddeley shouldn’t be building those cars.

Mr. Foulds: That is nonsense and the Premier knows it. That is a complete distortion of the truth and he knows it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I challenge him to do it. He hasn’t got the nerve.

Mr. Foulds: Why has the government invested so much? The Premier didn’t answer the question.

NUCLEAR WASTE

Mr. Germa: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. In all of the hysterical gyrations I see going on to relieve the pressure on the city of Sudbury, is the minister going to allow the final indignity to be heaped on the city when someone suggested that our empty mining shaft should be used as a disposal site for nuclear waste?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: That is before the ministry at the present time. Apparently, they will contain that material in a cement encasing and put it down 2,000 feet in an abandoned mine shaft.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, come on!

Hon. Mr. Kerr: That application is before us. We haven’t approved it but that is a suggested method of disposing of that waste.

Mr. Germa: Supplementary: Is the minister suggesting this stuff will be recoverable at any point in time when it would become dangerous, such as breaking open and starting to enter the water table?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: According to the application of the proponent, there would be no chance of it breaking open if it was encased in a cement casing. That is the claim by the proponent. As I say, we haven’t approved that certificate or that method.

Mr. Germa: Who is the proponent for this exercise?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I believe it’s Falconbridge.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: There have been enough supplementaries. The hon. member for Huron-Middlesex.

Mr. Foulds: Hasn’t he ever heard of a cave-in at a mine shaft?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: It is an abandoned mine shaft.

Mr. Cassidy: That stuff lasts for 25,000 years.

[11:30]

FINANCIAL PROTECTION FOR FARMERS

Mr. Riddell: I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Has the minister been following the Outlook conference in Ottawa this week and has he read reports entitled: “More farmers quitting; Slump predicted for apple growers; Farm machine sales to drop” and many other such headings?

Does it not concern the minister that so little attention is devoted by this government to the plight of the farmers and the millions of dollars and the thousands of jobs which have been lost in farming and in related industries and services in Ontario, compared to the spontaneous reaction of this government to sudden cutbacks, as unfortunate as they are, in such companies as Inco and Falconbridge?

Mr. Foulds: What reaction?

An hon. member: There goes the Liberal vote in Sudbury.

Mr. Martel: With the waste uranium.

Mr. Riddell: In view of the fact that farm incomes have declined by 11 per cent to the end of this year and are predicted to decline another five per cent next year, has the minister predicted what this is going to cost the Ontario economy in terms of dollars and in terms of jobs? What measures are the minister and his colleagues over there going to take to bring some stability to this primary industry in Ontario?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Absolute hogwash, and you know it.

Hon. W. Newman: I don’t need any help.

Mr. Warner: You need all the help you can get.

Hon. W. Newman: Let me say this: Let me just tell the members opposite one or two things about the agriculture industry in the province of Ontario. It’s the most efficient in the world, to start with. They sit over there and talk about jobs. There are 800,000 jobs in agriculture-related industries.

Mr. Roy: Bring on Gene Whelan.

Mr. Conway: Where is Bill Stewart?

Hon. W. Newman: Those jobs are important. They are very important. But the members opposite sit over there, and I haven’t heard a word from over there at all about what was said in the House this morning by the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett). It will be two years this January that I have been talking about it. If we are going to have an agriculture industry in Canada, we have two major things we have to be concerned with at the national level before we can develop a five- year program in the province. We have to know what they are going to do down there.

Mr. Ruston: Passing the buck.

Hon. W. Newman: We have not passed the buck. We have carried our own all the way and the farmers in the province know this.

Let me tell the members opposite this: With regard to the negotiations that are coming up with Ottawa right now, I suggest they talk to their counterparts. We are going down on Monday to do it -- and the members opposite have an obligation to do it, too. Yes, they do, because that’s what is going to make agriculture viable in this country. That and a truly national stabilization program --

Mr. Conway: Why don’t you just move to Ottawa and stay there? Just go down to Whelan’s office and stay there.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Hon. W. Newman: Oh, yes. And it’s time we started to pull together to make the agricultural industry of Canada work properly.

Mr. Conway: I thought you favoured national unity.

Hon. W. Newman: We have done, and we will continue to do, our share on behalf of the farmers of this province.

Mr. Riddell: Supplementary: It is all well and good to blame the federal government for everything, but in light of the declining farm incomes, reflecting the low prices that farmers are receiving at the farm gate, and in light of the articles that we read that food prices are the major contributors to the rising cost of living, why doesn’t the minister commission a study into the processing, distribution and retail trade to ascertain just where the ripoff is taking place?

Hon. W. Newman: I didn’t think I had to elaborate again to the members opposite the various programs we have brought forward in the province of Ontario. We have shouldered our responsibilities as far as the agriculture community is concerned. If the members opposite will check with the farm organizations, they will find we are in tune; maybe they are not, but we are. We have concerns; we always will. We brought a stabilization program in here. Corn is involved in the program this year.

There are a lot of other programs that I could talk about -- the capital grants program and all our other programs and services to farmers. We deal with them at the grass-roots level in our ministry. I get out there, and the members opposite know that.

The hon. member talks about food prices. Yes, the consumers have never had a better bargain in their life than they have in food. In this country they buy food with 16 per cent of their disposable income. They should be prepared to pay a little more --

Mr. Roy: You are plagiarizing Gene Whelan.

Hon. W. Newman: -- if they want to preserve our agricultural land and our farmers on the land. Thus we have our promotional program to sell Ontario products. I am glad to see that some of your members are helping us promote that. The farmers have to make a decent living; nobody is more aware of that than I am. And nobody is more committed to trying to help them make a better living than I am. Don’t forget that.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Algoma.

Hon. B. Stephenson: The great farmer.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: He couldn’t raise a disturbance.

Mr. Deans: Oh yes he could.

Mr. Wildman: Could the minister indicate when he expects to complete the study into the high cost of food in the small, isolated communities of the north?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I didn’t hear that question. There were too many side remarks.

Mr. Warner: The minister’s colleagues are unruly.

Mr. Foulds: The Minister of Northern Affairs should keep quiet.

Mr. Martel: That’s his first contribution ever.

Mr. Wildman: If I could repeat the question: In line with what the member for Huron-Middlesex was asking, when does the minister expect to complete the study into high food costs in the small isolated communities in northern Ontario, that he indicated he would do during the Ministry of Agriculture and Food estimates?

Hon. W. Newman: I think if the member will remember, the question he asked was about a specific town -- I believe it was White River, not all of northern Ontario -- because of the lack of competition there. I made a commitment during the estimates that we would look at that, and yes, we will be looking at it.

Mr. S. Smith: In the fullness of time.

Hon. W. Newman: In the fullness of time.

Mr. Makarchuk: That means never.

HOSPITAL EMPLOYEE BARGAINING

Mr. Dukszta: A question to the Minister of Labour. Will the minister implement the recommendations of the Johnston inquiry, tabled in 1974, which called for province-wide bargaining in hospitals, as negotiations are now under way regarding contracts which expire March 31, 1978? Does the minister not think the time has come to move on the subject?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I think significant progress has been made towards the recommendation suggested by Mr. Johnston in that report. Indeed, most of the hospitals in the southern part of the province do bargain on an organized basis. They resolve local issues locally, and those issues which cannot be resolved locally and certain other issues are taken to a central table.

This has been a rational move in the direction suggested by Mr. Johnston. I think the measure of success is an indication of the rate at which we should move in that direction, and indeed whether we should move totally in that direction. I think it’s wise to learn from the experiences of the negotiators and the groups involved in negotiations during the past three years, in order to make rational decisions about whether we should move further.

Mr. Dukszta: Supplementary: I didn’t ask the minister whether the individual hospitals are negotiating; I know they are doing that. I’m asking whether the minister is moving towards instituting province-wide negotiation, the way it has been done in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia, and the way she has done it in the construction industry; that’s what I’m asking her.

Hon. B. Stephenson: It’s all very well to suggest province-wide bargaining for hospitals in Alberta and Saskatchewan. In Saskatchewan the number of hospitals is large but the number of people involved is relatively small. There are more people involved in bargaining in at least three or four hospitals in Toronto than there are in bargaining for all the hospitals in the province of Saskatchewan. So they’re really not comparable.

I am not suggesting that we will move legislatively in this direction at this time. I just said that it was wise to gain experience in gradual moves in that direction to determine the wisdom and the validity of such a move before suggesting any such legislation.

MANAGEMENT STUDY

Mrs. Campbell: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. In view of the fact that his ministry has paid $328,347 to an organization for the training of persons under the Vocational Rehabilitation Services Act without a formal arrangement or contract, is the minister prepared today to table in this House the management consultant’s report?

Hon. Mr. Norton: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not. I will even give the hon. member the reason; again.

Mr. Martel: Quit while you are ahead.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I have received a final draft copy and within the next week, I and the other members of the steering committee are to meet with the consultants to finalize the report, at which time it will be produced in sufficient quantity to be circulated among the senior members of my management committee in the ministry. As I indicated to the member in the estimates when she raised this question, I feel my first obligation is to deal with the report with my senior management group, and only after that will I consider whether it is appropriate to table it in the House or make it public.

Mrs. Campbell: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister not believe that in view of the serious question of his ministry in the item to which I referred that he should view the matter rather more seriously than he has done? How long has he had that report?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I believe I received the draft copy of the report about a week ago --

Mrs. Campbell: At the time you told me you didn’t have it.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- and have been reading it and reviewing it since that time so I can prepare for the meeting with the consultants in the next week. I am sure the hon. member realizes that I do have other things on my plate at this point.

Mrs. Campbell: Oh, you do indeed.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am glad that she will acknowledge that. I really don’t know where the hon. member gets the idea that I don’t take all aspects of my ministry very seriously.

Mrs. Campbell: Because of the answers you have given this House.

Mr. Roy: Just the evidence; we look at the evidence.

Hon. Mr. Norton: That is precisely why we have embarked upon this very serious question of looking at the possibility of the review and perhaps reorganization of the management structure.

Mr. McClellan: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister say if it is a fact that the management consultant report has recommended that Dr. Crittenden, the deputy minister, should be replaced?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Absolutely not.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, if I may: Since rumours are very strongly rife and unusually well placed that the management report suggests certain substitutions be made in the most senior staff of the ministry, how about tabling the report in order to dispel these impressions?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I don’t wish to be repetitious. I will not table that report at this time because it is not yet even finalized.

Mr. Foulds: Which sections are you going to take out?

Hon. Mr. Norton: But I can assure the member that if he has heard the kinds of rumours that he is suggesting --

Mr. Lewis: Very strong rumours.

Mr. Makarchuk: We got copies before you did.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- they are absolutely fallacious.

Mr. Lewis: Well prove it.

Hon. B. Stephenson: The member for Bell- woods (Mr. McClellan) started the rumours.

Mr. Lewis: If he started it, it’s from a very good source, I may say; utterly reliable.

Mr. Cassidy: You guys hide everything.

Mr. Speaker: We are wasting time.

SOUTH AFRICA BOYCOTT

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker: my question is to the Premier. In view of the escalating oppressive policies of the South African government against the blacks there, symbolized by the brutal death of Steve Biko, does he not think it is time his government exercised some sanctions against South Africa? In particular would he start by instructing the Liquor Control Board to stop buying South African wines?

Mr. Breithaupt: You are the people who said they should be allowed to vote here.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I sense the parties opposite want to have a debate. If they want to have it, I will sit down. Would the member like to do that?

Mr. Kerrio: Oh, you wouldn’t do that.

Mr. Roy: You are the same way; you allow them to vote in this province.

Hon. Mr. Davis: And you don’t want people to vote in this province?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have to tell the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) -- no, I won’t; it is too close to Christmas.

Mr. Speaker: Talk to the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart).

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have to remind him how in-laws vote. In fact, they still have hopes for him.

Mr. Speaker, in reply to the very important and serious question raised by the member for Welland-Thorold, my own personal views, and I am sure the views of my colleagues, with respect to the policies of the government of South Africa I think do not need to be stated in this House. I don’t think we need to debate that here; I don’t sense any differences of opinion.

I think the question of whether or not this province should become involved in questions of economic sanctions -- whether the hon. member genuinely feels that this would be a proper response, whether it would produce anything that might alter the situation or improve it -- I think that is something that would have to be assessed very carefully and very objectively.

[11:45]

This issue has been raised before. There is no question that some products from South Africa, not just in the LCBO but in other retail outlets in the province, are being sold. I think there are arguments on both sides. Do you influence policy, do you correct situations with which you don’t agree in a country that is several thousands of miles away from here by this sort of activity?

I must confess I am not prepared to say at this moment that would serve that kind of purpose. I don’t want there to be any misunderstanding whatsoever on the part of the member for Welland-Thorold that I personally, while it isn’t a matter of provincial jurisdiction necessarily to comment on the internal policies of a nation of this world, am totally opposed to it, as I am sure he is; and I think I speak for my colleagues. Whether or not the suggestion he makes would be useful, solve any problem or serve any real purpose, is something that I would like to assess very carefully.

Mr. Swart: Supplementary: Is the Premier not aware that the provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia have instituted this kind of boycott? And in view of his excursion into international waters by his statement this morning, does he not think that this government could show at least a little displeasure with what is being done in South Africa by instituting this boycott on the sale of wines here?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I guess that one could, if one wanted to carry this to its ultimate conclusion, get into a discussion as to whether this government supports or does not support the internal policies in a number of nations of this world. This is where I think one starts getting into some very difficult areas in terms of what it is that one objects to personally in South Africa --

Mr. Swart: This is new; this is new.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- what reservations one might have about the internal policies of some other countries.

Mr. Swart: It is new and it is worsening.

Hon. Mr. Davis: To put it into perspective, I am sure there are other nations in the world where one can’t support what they are doing in terms of policy or principle or ideology. I think one has to think this thing through very carefully.

The minister has just passed me a note. Not that it alters the situation at all, the percentage of South African wine --

Mr. Swart: It’s 1.3 per cent.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, 1.3 per cent out of the total. I just am not going to give the hon. member a commitment on a matter of this kind as it relates to the province of Ontario at this moment, but I don’t want there to be an misunderstanding about my own view as to the policies of that country.

Mr Swart: You can’t be that disturbed if you won’t do it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I suggest to the hon. member that he just go through a list of half a dozen other nations and ask himself in his own conscience whether or not he agrees with what they are doing and whether this country should alter its trade policies as it relates to those countries as a way of solving the problem.

Mr. Lewis: I think South Africa is in a class of its own in the international community.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Sure, on this particular issue. But there are others.

BRADLEY-GEORGETOWN HYDRO CORRIDOR

Mr. Reed: I have a question of the Minister of Energy. In thanking the Minister of Energy for agreeing to ask cabinet for an outside study on the Bradley-Georgetown hydro corridor, a study requested consistently since 1973, would the minister accept this copy of Hydro’s application for an official plan amendment of the town of Halton Hills? It clearly shows a corridor north-south through Halton Hills, 750 feet wide minimum and 1,750 feet wide maximum. Based on this document will he undertake to correct the answer to a question which he gave last week denying that this was so? I specifically refer to

section 3, page 2, of this document entitled Location of Lands Affected.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to accept that particular document. It could have been done with less drama.

Mr. Peterson: Stop telling us how to behave. We are doing pretty well over here.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: The member for Halton-Burlington no doubt refers to the meeting that I had with the interested citizens’ group. May I correct the headline of that particular

article in the paper? What I said was that I would pursue the three principles that were of great concern to that delegation; that is, it seemed certain that Hydro could save time, money and achieve a more secure system if it went that other route.

I indicated that I was interested in obtaining the facts in regard to those three matters, that I would do so -- and I fully expect to have something on those matters before the day is out -- and that I would discuss those matters with the Premier and cabinet. Then, of course, any alteration in the government’s position in regard to that route would have to come from that source.

I want to make it abundantly plain that I did not undertake to obtain an independent report, which would take something like four months. That was not the substance of my undertaking to that particular delegation. I might reassure the member for Halton-Burlington that the delegation seemed quite satisfied that I would look objectively at its representations and get back to it next Wednesday.

SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for London North (Mr. Van Horne) asked me a few weeks ago if I could give him the number of capital building projects requested and approved in the current year. There were 560 projects requested and 130 were approved. This was for a total of $375 million requested and we were able to accommodate $88 million of the requests.

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

Mr. Philip: I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Am I correct in assuming from his statement in introducing the Kealey commission report to the Legislature that the only process for public input will be by way of written submission to the minister before January 31? Is that my understanding?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, it is at the present time.

Mr. Philip: In the light of the interest in this particular area, as evidenced by the number of presentations made to the Kealey commission by members of this party and members of the other opposition party, would the minister be willing to table the responses he has had from the various interest groups in order that we might have the most intelligent debate when the legislation eventually comes down? Would the minister also approach his House leader with a view having an open debate in this House scheduled for early in February on the Kealey commission recommendations?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The answer to the first question is yes, I would be pleased to make available any communications that come to me pursuant to my invitation to the Condominium Federation and others to make submissions in January, and I will make those available to members as soon as they are in.

Secondly, the answer is, after the end of January, obviously members will understand it takes a great deal of work to compile all the information we will be receiving and to make some careful consideration of the recommendations, the cost implications of some of them, the policies involved and to reflect upon the responses we get in January. I don’t think an early debate on the report itself would be terribly helpful because, as the member well points out, the parties have had their opportunity to make their views known with regard to the general principles involved before the study group.

Now that members have the report -- and I did, seriously go to great pains to provide it to them at this time so that they would have the Christmas break to study it -- I hope they will please make some representations to us and let us know what they would ordinarily say during a free-ranging debate early in February in the House, if the House were sitting then. I would very much appreciate the members providing us with the comments they might otherwise make in the debate process in February.

I think what would be much more helpful is if, as soon as the submissions are in, my staff and I sat down with a view to presenting for cabinet consideration some recommendations with regard to the frame and substance of a new Condominium Act. That will be necessary, because in order to draft the necessary legislation -- it would be very long and comprehensive -- legislative draftsmen would require a good two or three months to come up with a sensible piece of legislation.

The member therefore will understand the time limits, in view of my desire to have a bill in the House and passed by the House before we rise next June or July. Because of the time limitations, I would urge those persons who will be getting copies of this to make their representations to us in January -- and that includes all members of the House and the public -- so that we can move on it expeditiously.

Mr. Philip: One final supplementary.

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

Mr. Roy: Well, we’ll see the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) in the new year.

REPORT

CONDOMINIUM STUDY GROUP

Hon. Mr. Grossman presented the report of the Ontario Residential Condominium Study Group.

MOTION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Auld moved that notwithstanding standing order 2(a), the House will continue in session today until it is prorogued by the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

DISCRIMINATORY BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT

Hon. Mr. Davis moved first reading of Bill 129,

An Act to prohibit Discrimination in Business Relationships.

Mr. S. Smith: It’s about time.

Motion agreed to.

ANSWER TO WRITTEN QUESTION

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I notice on the government House leader’s desk -- and I’m sure the members opposite wouldn’t want not to have the answers to these questions -- the answer to question 57.

Mr. S. Smith: He may not have intended to give them.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on the concurrence. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The look you gave me there all of a sudden frightened me and I was just ready to back off and just accept the slings and arrows from the Chair.

I’ve been looking forward for some time to participating in this concurrence involving the Premier. I can understand that the Premier has other pressing matters. I have discussed with him the fact that he will be listening attentively on his box and occasionally I’ll see flashes on his microphone when --

Mr. Peterson: Do you have a box at the Albany Club, Bill?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will interject from the meeting.

Mr. Roy: Yes, interject from the meeting. I would point out to the Premier, though, and to my colleagues here who may well wonder why it is Saturday morning and we haven’t dealt with this concurrence before, that all week long I was told by the House leader --

Mr. Peterson: What day is this? Friday morning.

Mr. Roy: Is this Saturday or Friday?

Mr. Peterson: Friday.

Mr. Roy: All I know is it’s been a long week, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes. You have been here three days.

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, two and a half.

Mr. Roy: Oh, the Minister of Housing is here. I’d like to say to the Minister of Housing as well that he has --

Mr. Speaker: No, I wouldn’t want you to say anything to the Minister of Housing.

An hon. member: Direct it to the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: It is Friday and we’re dealing with concurrence of a report.

Mr. Roy: No, concurrence of the Premier’s office, which is very wide-sweeping, Mr. Speaker. It involves all sorts of things, including attacking the Minister of Housing, but I’ll not do that. I’ll adhere to your ruling.

But I do want to say to my colleagues that all week long I was at discussions with the House leader about when we were going to get to concurrence. He kept saying to me, “Well, the Premier wants to be here.” I said, “Well, it’s not really necessary for the Premier. I know he’s got other things to do, at least he tells us he’s got other things to do. So I could have concurrence either Tuesday night or Thursday afternoon or Thursday evening.” And all the while he said, “No, he wants to be here.” So we have it Friday morning and of course, I know that the Premier has other things and he is not here.

[12:00]

Nevertheless, I do accept the opportunity of speaking on the concurrence motion involving the Premier’s office because I’ve been waiting for some time to say certain things. While I will discuss some of these matters involving the Premier and the administration in various ministries, I would like to take advantage of the opportunity to remind my colleague, the Attorney General, now that the evidence is in involving the Judge Williams inquiry --

Mr. Speaker: We’re dealing with concurrence in supply for the Premier’s office.

Mr. Roy: That’s right.

Mr. Speaker: I haven’t heard anything yet that was germane to the motion before the House.

Mr. Roy: When we’re dealing with concurrence in the Premier’s office, we’re dealing with all aspects of business of the government of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Certainly not.

Mr. Roy: Yes, we are, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: You’re dealing with the operation of the Office of the Premier.

An hon. member: That’s right. Throw him out.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, the Office of the Premier and the office of the cabinet involves the whole operation of the government of Ontario, I say with great respect to the Chair.

Mr. Speaker: Not for purposes of supply.

Mr. Roy: I say that when we’re discussing the estimates of the Premier’s office it involves the whole operation of the province of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Certainly not. Whatever gave you that impression?

Mr. Roy: Logic.

Mr. Speaker: Certainly not. You’ve been around this House long enough to know when you’re dealing with supply you deal with a specific item and a specific vote dealing specifically with the way in which the money is being expended. You can’t go as far afield as you’re suggesting today. You will deal with the concurrence for supply for the estimates to operate the Premier’s office for this fiscal year.

Mr. Roy: Respectfully, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Do you want to challenge my ruling?

Mr. Roy: I don’t want to be abrasive with you.

Mr. Speaker: No, but I want you to be relevant and up to this point you haven’t been.

Mr. Roy: I don’t want any ruling just made off the cuff. I say that the Office of the Premier involves the operation of this whole province.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Nonsense.

Mr. Roy: What does a Premier do then?

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. Roy: You’re not going to listen to the Treasurer because if any one knows about nonsense it’s he. I say respectfully to the Chair that when we’re discussing the Premier’s office it’s always been my understanding that the Premier’s office involves the operation of the whole province.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Why didn’t you go to his estimates then?

Mr. Speaker: I so rule that you can only speak on things dealing with the operation of the Premier’s office. I’m going to insist on that. You can’t debate my ruling but you can challenge it if you wish.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker: I am challenging your ruling. I’m sorry. I think that’s much too restrictive.

Mr. Speaker: The question before the House was concurrence in supply for the Office of the Premier in the amount of $1,770,000.

The hon. member for Ottawa East contended that he could talk about anything having to do with the government of the province of Ontario. I ordered that all members would restrict their comments to that specific vote for the Office of the Premier. The member for Ottawa East thought he could talk about anything to do with government in the province. He has challenged my ruling.

The House divided on the Speaker’s ruling which was upheld on the following vote:

Ayes

Nays

Auld

Baetz

Belanger

Bennett

Bernier

Bounsall

Breaugh

Cassidy

Charlton

Cureatz

Davis

Davidson

Deans

Drea

Dukszta

Elgie

Foulds

Germa

Gigantes

Grande

Gregory

Grossman

Handleman

Havrot

Hennessy

Hodgson

Johnson

Jones

Kennedy

Kerr

Lane

Laughren

Lawlor

Leluk

Lewis

MacBeth

Maeck

Makarchuk

Martel

McCaffrey

McCague

McClellan

McKeough

McMurtry

McNeil

Newman W.

Norton

Philip

Pope

Rhodes

Rotenberg

Rowe

Samis

Scrivener

Smith, G. E.

Stephenson

Swart

Taylor, J. A.

Taylor, G.

Turner

Villeneuve

Warner

Welch

Wells

Wildman

Williams

Young

Ziemba

Blundy

Bolan

Bradley

Breithaupt

Campbell

Conway

Cunningham

Epp

Haggerty

Kerrio

McGuigan

Miller, G. I.

Newman, B.

Nixon

Peterson

Reed

Riddell

Roy

Smith, S.

Sweeney

Van Horne

Worton

Ayes 68; nays 22.

Mr. Roy: I accede to your ruling. I would now like to discuss what is called “an advisory committee on confederation” which has been set up by the Premier’s office. I also want to discuss a conference which took place on June 27 to June 29 called Destiny Canada that was also set up by the Premier’s office.

Hon. Mr. Davis: On a point of order so there is no misunderstanding. The conference was not set up by the Premier’s office, it was set up by York University with the support of the government.

Mr. Roy: And the Premier.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, no. The full credit goes to --

Mr. Peterson: The people at York, admit it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s right. But I don’t want you to think it was us who did it. It was the University of York and the committee.

Mr. Peterson: You are using all these academic institutions for your own purpose.

An hon. member: He is out of order again.

Mr. Foulds: “It was we who did it.” You need the nominative case after a copulative verb.

Mr. Lewis: You will never last by mangling grammar.

Mr. Roy: In any event that conference was organized through the initiative of the chairman of the advisory committee that was set up by the Premier’s office. I think, in that light, I can discuss, within your ruling, these --

Mr. Lewis: You should have said, “it was us what done it.” Then it would have been okay.

Mr. Roy: -- and similar other matters of the Premier’s office. I originally intended to speak about his relationship with the province of Quebec and with the national government. And I do want to say that I have been looking forward to participating in this type of discussion since November 1976. I am sorry --

Mr. Makarchuk: You could have done it in the Throne debate, the budget debate.

Mr. Roy: -- that this House, in spite of assurances by the Premier’s office, has not had an opportunity to discuss the role of the province of Ontario and the Premier, in relation to the unity of the country. We attempted to discuss this matter during the Premier’s estimates but, unfortunately, because of a time constraint we were unable to -- and that is not the Premier’s fault.

An hon. member: It’s Darcy McKeough’s fault.

Mr. Roy: There had been an agreement by the House leaders that there was only so much time for certain estimates. The Premier, on his own initiative, came down for his estimates but unfortunately that evening he had only an hour. When we did get into the discussion it had to be terminated rather quickly because of the time constraint.

I don’t want to unduly delay the proceedings of the prorogation of this House but I do feel the role of the province of Ontario and the role of the Premier is extremely important in the debate on this country that we all love, Canada. I say it is becoming more and more important because the challenge that is facing us all, as Canadians, is a very real and serious challenge indeed.

[12:30]

The gathering of the storm that started in the 1900s and which, in fact, blossomed on November 15, 1976, was not wholly unpredicted.

I can recall as a member of this House in 1973 going down to the Conservative caucus office here, where they have a television set, and we watched the returns of the Quebec election in 1973 and our joy over the overwhelming victory of the Liberal Party at that time. It was frightening, however, to observe the margin -- 102 of 110 seats. One knew at that point, with virtually a two-party system in that province, it was only a question of time for a majority government with so much power, to find itself in strong disfavour with the public of Quebec.

It seemed inevitable that the existing opposition party, which was dedicated to the separation of this country, would come to power. So it did -- on November 15, 1976.

If I may talk briefly, Mr. Speaker, about the challenge the Premier and this province have to face on this.

This is a government of extremely capable and competent people. I get extremely annoyed when I hear certain people -- I don’t intend to name them but some of them come from the province of Quebec -- who adopt an offhand attitude that the Parti Quebecois were just a bunch of radicals and it was only a question of time before they would no longer hold power.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Trudeau said that.

Mr. Roy: You are saying that?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Trudeau said that.

Mr. Roy: If he said it I don’t agree with him, but whether it was Trudeau or not, these politicians were extremely competent people; people with qualifications, dedicated to their goals, extremely lucid and able to communicate with the public. I know very few politicians that have such an effective grasp and rapport with the public of their province as the Premier of Quebec.

When I look at all the propaganda involved -- some of these questions I have raised in the House on this issue -- propaganda going on in schools and through the media. This is, indeed, a serious challenge. What do we have to meet that challenge?

There is a perception on the part of Canadians that those leaders who are meeting the challenge are the Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, and René Levesque and that this happens to be a fight between them. It should be a debate that involves all of us; and certainly the Premier of this province and all the people of Ontario.

That void is accentuated by the fact that in the province of Quebec there is no leader of the opposition who can consistently bring forward alternatives. That is something to be corrected, Mr. Speaker. It makes the challenge extremely important as to who is going to fill this void. If we don’t fill it at the federal level, if it is not filled at the Quebec provincial level, then it must be done by other provinces.

I suspect the approach taken by the other provinces, by the Premier of this province, by the province of Ontario -- who has always had a special relationship with the province of Quebec -- what they are going to put forward is going to be more credible. We are not in conflict. We are sister provinces.

Mr. Lewis: Well, you are right. You are right, but the Liberals failed federally, the Liberals failed provincially, and now you ask us to bail everyone out. Thank you, very much.

Mr. Roy: The leader of the NDP -- and I’ve always thought it offensive that any party would be called a third party in this House -- is talking about who has failed. There has been a failing. As I said before, since 1960 there have been certain corrections that should have been made and were not made. The fault lies in great part at the federal level, but the fault lies with other provinces and this province as well. Once we get into a problem, the most positive way of dealing with it is not looking back to see who caused it --

Mr. Lewis: Sure it is.

Mr. Roy: -- but saying “Let’s look to the future and see what we can do about it.”

Mr. McClellan: Ignore the cause, like an ostrich.

Mr. Roy: I am not. I am not for a minute ignoring the cause. I could get into the cause over some length of time, but I don’t want to do that today. I do want to say that there has to be a response and there has to be a response by the Premier of this province and by this province itself, which may well be more credible than any response made at the federal level.

The response from the federal level always is on the basis of conflict. If we give Quebec more, we have less for the federal people; and the federal people will have a perception they’re giving away certain of their powers, while Quebec members at the federal level will not have the same standing as other federal members because Quebec will have been given more power.

This country was put together by the provinces, Mr. Speaker, and I say to you it’s going to be kept together by the role played by certain provinces, especially the province of Ontario. What goes on in this province is more important than what goes on basically at any other level except the federal level. How have we met this challenge? We have done some things in this province, but in my opinion we haven’t done enough. I can recall, following November 15, the Premier’s approach at that time, the confusion that took place, the lack of knowing which way to turn and how to meet this challenge.

I want to discuss briefly the Premier’s approach back in February 1977, when he went down to the province of Quebec to the carnival. At that time, he had discussions with Premier Levesque. Here was the response he made in a speech in London, Ontario, as reported in the Globe and Mail on February 7, 1977. The paper said: “Premier William Davis said yesterday that it is too early to search for solutions to the threat of Quebec’s separating from Canada because the problem is not yet that clear or fully understood.”

If after November 15 the problem was not fully understood by the Premier of this province, I think we’ve got problems responding to the threat. It was with great chagrin that certain newspapers reported his approach. I look back at an editorial in the Montreal Star on February 8, 1977, following the Premier’s visit. It stated as follows: “The Ontario Premier’s round of Caribou diplomacy in Quebec City over the weekend does not appear to have left the country noticeably more united. He sought an informal pact with Premier Levesque to cool for the moment the debate over separatism, but since Mr.

Levesque had already made it clear in New York that he had no intention of cooling the debate and his ministers since have been busy pursuing all over the North American continent, it would seem that the self-denial is likely to be one-sided.”

The original response by the Premier’s office was not one that we should have expected for a province which was neighbouring on the frontiers of the province of Quebec. It saddened me deeply at that time to think we were going to take an approach in the face of that threat that said basically cool it, that it’s too early to be looking for a solution. Not only did it concern many of us in this province, but the credibility of the Premier of the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec went down somewhat.

It’s important that the credibility of the Premier of the province of Ontario be as high as possible in Quebec. I note John Robarts’ reputation in the province. I say to you, that is something we should all wish for, whether it is partisan or otherwise, because we’re talking again about the unity of this country.

As matters progressed since November 15, 1976 -- and I’ve watched them over the year 1977 -- what happened? What was the Premier’s response? I’ve got to give full credit to the Leader of the Opposition; certainly he perceived how serious a threat it was at that time. Some people were suggesting that his voice was one of shrillness and that he was too emotional about this. He, at least, was one of the people who had a perception of what we were to meet and what we are experiencing here every day.

I’ll put an example to you, Mr. Speaker, to show how organized the Parti Quebecois is. Their leader goes on a trip to Paris and receives medals, and then when he returns, they use propaganda to get 15,000 people to that airport to m