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

December 9, 1976

30th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L133 - Thu 9 Dec 1976 / Jeu 9 déc 1976

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

CAMPING IN PROVINCIAL PARKS

TRAINING SCHOOLS ACT

REHABILITATION WORKSHOP PROGRAMMES

BUMPER STICKERS

CAMPING IN PROVINCIAL PARKS

OHTB BUS LICENCE

KIRK FOLEY

PICKERING NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION

CAMPING IN PROVINCIAL PARKS

BROWNDALE OPERATIONS

AIR POLLUTION AT HAMILTON

AIR POLLUTION AT NIAGARA FALLS

HAMILTON GENERAL HOSPITAL

PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS

NEW HYDRO GENERATING PLANT

COURSES IN UKRAINIAN

CBC FRENCH TELEVISION FILM

HYDRO POWER REDUCTION

PETITIONS

REPORTS

CONSUMER INFORMATION ACT

OHTB BUS LICENCE

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. You will recall that on Tuesday last, December 7, I brought to your attention the problem the public accounts committee was having in seeking information from the OHIP files as it relates to practitioners’ incomes from OHIP.

Within the last couple of hours it has been brought to my attention that the Ontario Medical Association will be seeking a court injunction restraining OHIP from supplying said committee with said information.

I would therefore request, Mr. Speaker, that you issue your warrant, demanding that the information requested by the committee be supplied, returnable within 12 hours, for the committee’s use only.

Mr. Speaker: I’ll have to take that under advisement and report back to the hon. member. This is the first I’ve heard of this, so I’ll report very quickly back.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: That’s all I can say at this time. I can’t do anything else about what somebody else is going to do outside the House, I point out to the hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, did my colleague not raise with you the question of the issuance of a Speaker’s warrant in respect of this matter a day or two ago, and are you not in a position to report to the House your authority in this matter?

Mr. Speaker: I don’t recall the matter of the Speaker’s warrant at that time. I’ll have to check that. I missed that.

Mr. Lewis: If memory serves me, Mr. Speaker, with respect, I think in fact this precise point was made by the chairman of the public accounts committee -- the need to turn to a Speaker’s warrant. This is a pretty serious matter when members of the Legislature are denied public information to which they may well be entitled and we would urge your immediate intervention.

Mr. Speaker: I’m sorry if I missed that point. If you will recall, at that time the hon. minister made an explanation and I wasn’t sure whether it satisfied the hon. member or not. But I shall surely pursue it early this afternoon.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, if I might, I specifically raised the matter subsequent to my colleague from Sudbury, and asked you to issue a Speaker’s warrant -- I specifically used that term -- on Tuesday last.

Mr. Speaker: Again, I am sorry if I missed that. I really did. I shall pursue it immediately, though.

Statements by the ministry.

The Minister of Natural Resources.

Mr. Stokes: Say it isn’t so.

Mr. Lewis: This is a memorandum of understanding with the Minister of Industry and Tourism.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, free enterprise shall reign.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Surely I don’t have to reprimand the hon. members for this outburst. The hon. minister has a statement, I believe.

CAMPING IN PROVINCIAL PARKS

Hon. Mr. Bender: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to assure all the hon. members that despite the impression which may have been created by this morning’s Globe and Mail --

Mr. Lewis: They do it to you every time.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- there will be no closing of any campgrounds in provincial parks in Ontario, nor will there be any reduction in the amount of campsites available to the public. Any suggestion to the contrary is simply untrue.

Mr. Lewis: What?

Mr. S. Smith: I saw the minister on television myself.

Mr. Nixon: What is the minister talking about?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, in my opening statement in the debate last October on my ministry’s estimates I said very clearly, openly and publicly that my staff were exploring ways to ensure continued high service to the camping public at the lowest possible cost to them and at the most reasonable cost to the government.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I also indicated then that as an experiment, in two out of 123 provincial parks the campgrounds were run by private operators last summer. They were at Sturgeon Bay and Inwood parks. The entry fees and the camping fees were the same as those charged at other provincial parks. Let me repeat that. There was no increase in the fees at those parks and the service level was supervised to ensure that it was better than or equal to the publicly-run parks.

Last week in Sudbury I was asked by the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters at their annual conference if more privatization of campgrounds was planned. I mentioned that our experiment would continue and that this coming season two more parks may have campgrounds operated privately. I stated clearly that no fee increase will be allowed over the rate charged at the other provincial parks where campsites are available.

I approved the experiments just described so that we might continue to explore other ways of providing public camping facilities at reasonable cost, as was recommended in the Special Programme Review under the chairmanship of Maxwell Henderson, the former Auditor General of Canada. The suggestion in the Globe and Mail story this morning that there would be a reduction in campsites available to the public is simply wrong.

Another point is that when I was questioned by newsmen yesterday about this matter, I made it very clear that this matter had not been discussed by cabinet and that there had been no policy change.

Mr. Conway: There’s no policy.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: May I suggest the members check the Canadian Press story, written right after I was interviewed by the newsmen. It states that no policy change has been made. The Globe and Mail story is a sad distortion of our government’s justly-praised effects --

Mr. Breithaupt: I heard you this morning.

Mr. S. Smith: I saw the minister on television. He has a double on television.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- to seek ways to ensure better, high-quality and continuing camping facilities for the people of the province of Ontario. This is a programme that I’m proud of and we intend to keep it that way.

Interjections

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

TRAINING SCHOOLS ACT

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, on May 5, 1975, the Legislature enacted The Training Schools Amendment Act, 1975, repealing

section 8 which allowed a family court judge to commit a so-called unmanageable child to training school if no other programme was appropriate and if training school was thought to be needed.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, could we do something to be able to hear the minister? We can’t hear what she’s saying.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, we can give full and rapt attention. But I may say we are having some difficulty, I understand, with the sound system this afternoon.

Mr. Singer: Yes, we can understand that too, but we can’t hear her.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That’s not helping. I would ask all the hon. members who have the floor to speak up and the rest to co-operate, and I’m sure we’ll be able to manage. Sorry.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, on May 5, 1975, the Legislature enacted The Training Schools Amendment Act, 1975, repealing

section 8 which allowed a family court judge to commit a so-called unmanageable child to training school if no other programme was appropriate and if training school was thought to be needed. This amendment, which was supported by all members in this Legislature, reflected the view that it is inappropriate to incarcerate a child who has not committed a criminal offence. Proclamation of the amendment Act has been delayed to allow the province to study the implications of the repeal and to allow further time for communities and the courts to adjust to the change.

We have seen admissions under

section 8 drop from 604 in 1972 to 143 in 1975. There were 72 up to November 30 of this operating year. Most of the recent admissions are from distinct pockets in the province, and the fact that such admissions continue does not necessarily reflect the lack of alternative community resources. A few family court judges continue to use

section 8 and would, I suppose, continue to do so as long as it is legally possible.

On the other hand, this Legislature is committed to the repeal of

section 8 and to delay further would be to allow the flow of cases, albeit greatly reduced, to continue for an indefinite period. We have concluded, therefore, that we must proclaim the Act. The Training Schools Amendment Act, 1975, will be proclaimed on January 1, 1977.

As of December 3 of this year there were 786 children still in the wardship of the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. J. R. Smith) under

section 8 of The Training Schools Act. Of this total, 103 are in training schools. Others are in group homes, foster homes, special treatment centres and their own homes. After proclamation, some will still remain where they are. I would find myself placed in an unconscionable position if all of these children were to have their wardships terminated on January 1 with no regard for their care. Many of them are responding positively to the care and the treatment they are receiving and it would be irresponsible to move them from their community placements.

Of the 103 children still in training schools, 42 are expected to be returned to their own homes. Another 15 children will be placed in the ministry’s group homes and 26 will go to ministry-supervised foster homes. Twenty others will be placed in boarding homes, treatment centres and special facilities. Each case is being individually reviewed by officials of the Ministry of Correctional Services so that the child will be placed in the most suitable location according to his or her needs, and an after-care officer is being assigned to each case.

[2:15]

In the placement of those wards who present particularly severe problems, the ministry’s work is being assisted by a special committee of the Interministerial Council for Troubled Children and Youth. Some 25 cases are currently being reviewed to work out a co-operative plan for the placement of each child.

It is the aim of the Ministry of Correctional Services to have moved all

section 8 wards from Training Schools by September 1, 1977, and to terminate wardships under

section 8 just as soon as suitable alternatives to wardship can be found. The Minister of Correctional Services will direct his officials that, after proclamation, any children who remain as wards under

section 8 are not to be returned to training school under the repealed

section of that Act.

The repeal of

section 8 is a necessary and a proper action. I hope the support of all members will continue as we grapple with some of the larger issues surrounding the problems of those children who require our special attention.

We have already taken some administrative steps. As the Minister of Health told the House last week, his ministry issued a directive on November 23 restricting the circumstances under which a psychiatric hospital can lay charges against children in its care. The directive notes that, first, charges cannot be brought simply to relocate a child who is difficult to manage, and second, each case must be reviewed by the minister.

The ministries of Correctional Services, Community and Social Services and Health have advised their staffs and agencies that records must be forwarded immediately or delivered by accompanying staff when a child is transferred from one facility to another.

In a concerted effort to deal with young children who are severely disturbed, we will transfer the services and programmes of White Oaks Village to the Ministry of Health from the Ministry of Correctional Services on April 1, 1977. As most of the members know, White Oaks has provided care for boys under 12 years of age in a family-like setting, with an educational programme designed to meet their needs.

Admissions in the past have been limited to those committed by a court order. We propose to make it available to a wider population, and for the first time to include girls. It will be operated as a direct service of the children’s mental health services branch of the Ministry of Health. The facility will serve both wards of the Ministry of Correctional Services and Children’s Aid Societies. Priority will be given to those children for whom no other community child-caring or treatment resource is available.

We are working on further plans which I hope to share at a later date in more detail. In this regard, there will be dollars available for selected areas of the province with special needs. However, I would like the members to know now that our priorities include the establishment of a small, secure, treatment unit for severely disturbed adolescents.

Some of the members are already aware of the work of the Council for Troubled Children and Youth, with representation from seven ministries, which is headed by a full-time chairman and which reports to me. I hope I can impart to the House some of the enthusiasm and the goodwill that this interministerial council is showing in dealing with the complex issues related to troubled children.

In co-operation and in consultation with non-government people, the council is working on some of the broader and more troubling aspects of our shared concerns. For example, the council, with an expanded mandate from cabinet, will be studying the provision of residential services to children and youth. We are embarking, in fact, on a widespread review of special provincial services to children in order to develop guidelines for the continuation of services and the co-ordination of these services.

This is an enormous and important task, crossing ministries and policy fields. The council has already worked to assist in the transfer of White Oaks, and its recommendations are being sought in identifying areas of this province in need of selective funding. I might add here that we hope in general to put the dollars into programmes rather than into capital projects.

Such a project is already under way -- without the assistance of our special funds -- between the ministries of Correctional Services and Health. Each ministry has contributed $40,000 on a contracting arrangement for the purchase of service on a one-to-one basis for correctional wards with special needs. It is a very modest programme but it clearly demonstrates the direction in which this government intends to proceed by putting money with the child. For instance, one former ward of Hillcrest Training School, with many earlier unsuccessful placements, is now in a specialized foster home with a daily worker and a consultant to assist the boy and his foster parents.

We are committed to doing our best for children and youth with problems. I should caution, however, that we probably will never have all the answers. The public expectation that our workers can take these damaged children and effect a magic “cure” cannot always be realized. There will be some failures. It remains that what children need most is effective parenting. It is truly a sad fact that we cannot achieve full success in the treatment of every child who comes into our care.

But we must never lose sight of the thousands of children who are assisted by the caring attention of teachers, childcare workers, after-care workers, probation officers, doctors and many others. They too are committed to the improvement of the system and they deserve our support. It is, after all, the mutual objective of all of us to see that each child receives our help in the most appropriate setting for his or her needs.

REHABILITATION WORKSHOP PROGRAMMES

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, in response to the questions raised by the Leader of the Opposition earlier this week concerning rehabilitation workshop programmes, I would like to provide details on the status of approvals and funding of these programmes. My reply of November 29 to the November 18 letter of the Georgian Bay Council for the Mentally Retarded, advised their chairman of the same information I am now sharing with you.

The Leader of the Opposition asked for an explanation of the “absence of government support” and specifically referred to “delays” within my ministry in regard to rehabilitation workshop programmes. An outline of the progress of specific projects shows, to the contrary, that government has given heavy support, both in funds and staff resources, and that in fact much has been accomplished in a very short period of time.

Port Elgin Life Skills project: The member has asked why no funds had been received. The facts show that while the purchase of service agreement was only finalized on October 20, a cheque was mailed from Treasury on November 15, even before my colleague and I received the inquiring letter from the Georgian Bay Council.

Collingwood Life Skills programme: The Leader of the Opposition will surely see that on projects such as Collingwood, this ministry certainly left no one “hanging.” Our first contact on this project was in May. Within one week a staff person was sent to Collingwood to discuss the project. By the beginning of June, their project had been drawn up, with ministry staff assistance, and had received approval in principle. Despite the project changing from a life skills to a work and training proposal, by September the ministry had assisted them in every way, including the preparation of a legal agreement.

Before final approval was given, the workshop had taken on new clients in September. The final details of their proposal were approved this week and in fact, to assist them, the ministry has backdated their approval to September 1, to cover those clients accepted before the legal agreement and budget had been finalized. This kind of flexibility on the part of the ministry shows our concern to assist these workshops, many of which operate on volunteer resources.

Orillia Life Skills and Transportation proposals: Again this project shows there have not been the kinds of delays the Leader of the Opposition suggested in his question. Their request first came to my ministry on June 29. Many parts of the proposal needed working out between the ministry and the association, because they had in fact made three proposals -- a life skills, a transportation and a group home proposal. They had not decided whether they wanted to utilize existing government-leased space in Orillia, for the life skills programme, or explore the feasibility of leasing their own space.

The transportation proposal needed better definition as it was not tied to any other specific programme. Rather than merely rule it ineligible under the workshop programme, the ministry made every effort to work with the association to develop a new proposal which would integrate the transportation proposal with other proposals.

A change in their workshop manager in September, their lack of viability to support a group home which they had proposed, and the lack of integration of their three proposals, necessitated more detailed discussions on their projects. A further meeting had already been scheduled for December 16 between the local association for the mentally retarded and ministry representatives, to discuss the three proposals so that they could be delivered in a co-ordinated manner prior to approving the rehabilitation parts of the proposals.

Mr. Lewis: So, in fact, nothing happened in that case?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Dufferin Life Skills, Owen Sound Life Skills and Walkerton Expanded Work and Training proposals: These proposals were all submitted in August, after allocations for workshop funds had been made. In light of the very rapid growth of the workshop programmes in the first half of this fiscal year, it was necessary to secure approval for additional funding.

Although the Leader of the Opposition suggests it is irresponsible to give approval in principle but no funding immediately, thereby leaving groups “hanging,” it is my belief that these workshop programmes are of such value that additional funding is a good investment. Additional funding was secured earlier this month, so approvals on these programmes can be made immediately.

Mr. Lewis: That’s right. After they harried you, you gave them money.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Barrie: It was only in June that Barrie requested assistance from the ministry to analyse their needs and they were, in fact, nowhere near developing a proposal to meet those needs. Due to vacations and the summer recess of the workshop, it was agreed that fall would be a good time to discuss the programme evaluation. By September, allocations had already been made for funds, but rather than suggest they not develop a proposal, my ministry staff agreed to meet with the Barrie workshop when the financial control guidelines had been established, as these would be the key to the development of any proposal.

In keeping with our commitment to conduct the programme evaluation and discuss the budget guidelines with this workshop, I anticipate a ministry consultant will be in Barrie in the very near future, now the guidelines are established. We have already had several conversations with this group, so some information has already been conveyed and some background work completed.

Glengarry ARC Industries: The leader of the third party specifically asked me “why money never seems to arrive there” and why, for a second month in a row, they didn’t have money to pay salaries. The fact that a cheque for $7,272 left Treasury on October 27 for their September claims and one for $6,381 left Treasury on December 1 for their October claims --

Mr. Lewis: After it was raised.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: -- shows that money in fact does arrive there.

Mr. S. Smith: It did -- after Villeneuve asked for it.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Since in both cases, as with the majority of workshop cases, there was less than a three-week turnaround time from receipt of claims to issuing of cheques, there is no delay in payment to workshops.

As the member asked me to look specifically into the workshop in Alexandria --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Might I point out that there must be a microphone open and some conversation taking place next to it, which is further interfering with the sound in the --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That’s not helping. Would you just keep your private conversations down, please? The hon. minister will continue.

[2:30]

Mr. Sargent: He is not going to say anything.

Mr. Roy: We don’t mind. That is just Bette giving advice to John.

Mr. Sargent: Advice to the lovelorn.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: As the member asked me to look specifically into the workshop in Alexandria and this month’s claims, I would like to report the claims were received by the ministry on November 10; approved by the rehabilitation branch; forwarded to accounts and Treasury, and a cheque actually left Treasury on December 1, before three weeks had passed -- well before the member’s question to me.

As a result of the interest expressed by hon. members in the rehabilitation workshop programme, I would now like to provide information on the overall programme to date. To provide work and training opportunities for the retarded and handicapped, my ministry has increased the budget for workshops by $5.1 million, from $12 million last year to $17.1 million this year. This is an increase of 42 per cent. The expansion of the 138 workshops in the province will, by the end of this fiscal year, serve 7,750 people.

Mr. R. S. Smith: It is all federal money that you didn’t spend last year.

Mr. S. Smith: Did you put a federal label on it?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: The workshops have also expanded the range of programmes they can offer in assessment and training, sheltered employment, life skill programmes and work placement projects.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Ninety-one proposals for programme expansion have been received by the ministry this year. Of these, 57 have been approved to date. The other 34 will be reviewed and processed within the next 30 days.

Mr. Conway: Filibuster.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I thought you were interested in workshops? I think you would be concerned about the workshops --

Mr. Conway: Filibuster.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister will continue with his statement.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: This dramatic growth necessitated a radical change in both our ministry’s involvement and the workshop operations themselves.

Mr. Cassidy: Statements should be limited in time, especially his.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: To assure the effective delivery of the programmes and the efficient management of public funds, my ministry has over the past six months instituted various administrative changes. In June, the workshop programmes for the mentally retarded and the workshop programmes for the handicapped were put under one administration. This was done to take advantage of the expertise that has been developed within our ministry.

Six community employment officers have been hired to assist the workshop managers and the associations for the mentally retarded. Moreover, each of the 19 district offices of this ministry have allocated a staff member to provide liaison with the workshops to streamline the administration. In addition to this staff assistance, we will, in the near future, provide the workshop managers with financial control guidelines. In the past they have been dependent largely on volunteers for assistance in financial management.

At the beginning of this year our goal was to create 755 new places for work and training. In fact, we will have more than doubled our target -- we will have 1,870 new places by the end of the year. This represents an increase of 32 per cent over last year’s total places of 5,880.

I have received many encouraging letters from associations, and from the Ontario Association for the Mentally Retarded, who can see from their provincial view the vast growth and opportunities in this area in a short time.

Mr. Conway: I can imagine.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Such growth would certainly suggest that, contrary to the Leader of the Opposition’s statement, there is optimism not depression in the area of workshop expansion.

Mr. Conway: Point of order, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: That’s not really a point of order but it’s a good point.

BUMPER STICKERS

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, the members will notice on their desks today bumper stickers that promote our Niagara grape and wine industry. I’m sure all the members will use the stickers proudly on their cars and they are published here in the province of Ontario. I would ask members to put their bumper stickers on to help promote a very fine industry here in the province of Ontario.

Mr. Stoke: That is something like being your own liquor control board.

An hon. member: High-powered government action.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Oral questions.

CAMPING IN PROVINCIAL PARKS

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, a question first to the Minister of Natural Resources. What did he say to the media which resulted in such unhappy misinterpretation of his customary verbal precision? Did the minister, in fact, indicate he would, over a period of time, reduce the number of campsites, or alternatively that he would turn a number of campsites into the hands of private operators in order to satisfy his insatiable need to reprivatize everything in sight?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, there was a question raised, as I said in my opening statement, at the NOTO convention in Sudbury, at which time they questioned the government’s direction with regard to the privatization of provincial parks. The member will recall that in the Henderson report there was a suggestion that we go in that particular direction, provided the quality of service and the price the public would pay were maintained.

We did embark on an experiment last year with two of nor smaller provincial parks. We put them up for public tender. We received a number of proposals for Sturgeon Bay and Inwood parks. They operated last year, just on a year’s lease. We didn’t really get a tremendous amount of information from that one-year experiment. We are looking at the possibility of putting two or three other parks in the province of Ontario into the same field, maybe for a year or two longer, to give us a better feel, a better picture and more information as to how this could really work.

We are anxious, of course, to narrow the gap between the cost of operating and the amount of money we receive in our fees, a deficit of about $11 million. We don’t intend, in any way, to reduce the 21,500 campsites in our provincial parks system, either through our own maintenance of those sites or through the private sector. The private sector at the present time has about 40,000 provincial campsites in the province of Ontario and it indicates to us they are getting stronger, they are doing a much better job.

If members look at the Algonquin Park master plan, I think it’s a typical example. We are looking at it very carefully. The pressures on that particular area are tremendous, with the growing numbers of people who are visiting that particular park. It is obvious to us that we have to move out the camping sites there and put them into our satellite parks, which is part of the master plan programme. So we are moving on that but not in any way reducing the number of campsites.

Mr. Lewis: Is the minister prepared to give an undertaking that the sites at present available in the public parks, for the use of families in Ontario, will be maintained at a price no higher than that which the ministry charges, if run privately? Can the minister tell us what’s wrong with some margin of public subsidy in order to facilitate inexpensive campsites for average working families in Ontario? What’s wrong with that principle?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I believe if the member had heard my remarks, I indicated that was this government’s intention, to maintain that number of campsites at that price.

Mr. Lewis: That is not what I read.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That’s what we intend.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: There’s a margin of subsidy, one might call, in the park system; we agree to that. It’s substantial at the present time and it’s growing, it’s growing each year. We are concerned about it and we are looking at ways to give a better service to the general public at a price the public can pay. We are very firm on that point.

Mr. Warner: You won’t have to worry about the frees either.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, regarding whether there is a misquote or not: Could the minister confirm if that was in fact he himself speaking on television last night, when I watched and heard him say there are two long-term policies in his ministry? One was to end, gradually, on a long term, overnight camping in the parks, “reserving the parks for other purposes such as day use,” and secondly, to turn over what camping does exist, gradually, to “the private sector.” Was that not he that I saw on television saying those things?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That quote might not be exactly what I said.

Mr. Conway: Get the Minister of Transportation and Communications to make your speech.

Mr. Roy: You have had sober second thoughts, have you?

An hon. member: Did the leader of the Liberal Party take it down in shorthand?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I think he might be putting words in my mouth, but I have just repeated to the Leader of the Opposition the thoughts that we have within the ministry. We are looking at it very carefully, as a responsible ministry should; looking at the overall programme, the programme of recreation, and we are proud of it. Last year we catered to about 11 million people in the province of Ontario, in 123 provincial parks.

Mr. Lewis: Don’t destroy it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That’s 10 million acres of this beautiful province that we are going to continue to maintain.

Mr. Lewis: Have you thought of another ministry, perhaps?

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: Did you actually say there were so many rules and regulations under the Ministry of Natural Resources, within the public park system, that they could not operate them effectively against the private parks system? Isn’t the solution, if that is a problem, streamlining those rules and regulations and ensuring the rules and regulations protect the public interest?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We believe on this side of the House that there are areas that the private sector can operate in and operate much more effectively and efficiently than government. That’s the thrust of what I said.

Interjections.

An hon. member: Have you mailed a letter lately?

Mr. Reed: I wonder if the minister is aware that the Ontario Provincial Parks Council has addressed itself to this problem and had a draft policy statement ready to submit to the minister? Has the minister not gone ahead with a policy statement without consideration for the Ontario Provincial Parks Council?

Mr. Good: Which he set up.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I have been in touch with Dr. Priddle of the Ontario Parks council and we clarified the erroneous press statements as of today. He has been instructed to carry on with this policy submission.

Mr. S. Smith: When, when?

Mr. Bain: Could the minister answer whether in fact the move toward privatization is not an effort to hide the fact that the government is not able to monitor campsites properly, there is an increased amount of rowdiness and the ministry doesn’t want that to become a problem because it can’t seem to handle it, and so it is turning the parks over to private interests? Could the minister also indicate to the House how many rebates were made in provincial parks across the province last year, and for what total sum of money, to overnight campers who put in a complaint and demanded a rebate because of the rowdiness and their inability to get a decent night’s sleep?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The answer to the first part of the member’s question is, no. I would be glad to get the information with regard to the number of rebates and direct it to him personally.

Mr. Speaker: We have had now eight minutes on this particular question. I think the hon. Leader of the Opposition should direct a new question.

OHTB BUS LICENCE

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications: In light of the review of the Gray Coach-Greyhound decision, which he ordered yesterday, does the minister not think it both logical and fair that an extension of that review be the prohibition, directed at Greyhound, against its using the routes granted to it until the cabinet has issued its final decision?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, Mr. Speaker, we have not made that decision.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, why would the minister want to sharpen the confrontation, develop the public expectation and anxiety and create all the unnecessary arguments that will flow from granting Greyhound these routes in the interim period? Surely it is a logical extension of the minister’s position to have them hold back until the cabinet has decreed?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t agree with the hon. member that that should be done.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary: If, as the minister’s statement suggests, he is not yet satisfied that the board fully considered the future of the routes to the smaller cities and towns in Ontario, and if he is not satisfied that the board fully considered the financial status of Gray Coach, then in the absence of such satisfaction on his own part, why would he permit Greyhound to continue to possibly damage the viability of Gray Coach and those particular routes?

Hon. Mr. Snow: This matter is going to be considered as expeditiously as possible. I do not think the period of time that will be involved will have any major damaging effect on Gray Coach, and in fact it may be very worthwhile to be able to observe the experience of the two companies running on that route.

[2:45]

An hon. member: We’re not going to let them run --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Breaugh: Supplementary: Does the minister have any proposals to make to those poor souls who have already lost their jobs, or will lose them, while the minister is doing this waltz around the block?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, I don’t believe that will be the case.

Interjections.

KIRK FOLEY

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Premier: Has it yet been determined which riding the Premier has in mind for Mr. Kirk Foley, president of the UTDC, as the Conservative candidate in the next provincial election?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Unlike the New Democratic Party of this province, which makes allocations of candidates to particular ridings --

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- ours is a totally democratic party, where those decisions are made by the local riding organizations, so I can’t help the Leader of the Opposition. I only wish that we find qualified candidates, unlike the NDP, in all the ridings of this province. It will be done democratically by the local riding associations, which the NDP should try some time; it would be a revelation for them.

Mr. Speaker: Are you sure that was of urgent public importance?

Mr. Lewis: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. All I was seeking was confirmation of the rumour, and now I’ve received it. Thank you very much,

Mr. Conway: Taylor’s parachute is still open.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We’re wasting valuable time.

PICKERING NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION

Mr. S. Smith: A question for the Minister of Energy: Does he yet have an answer to my question of some time ago, regarding the alleged secret document, known as the Pickering Safety Report, and can he confirm some of the allegations that were made in an excerpt from that particular book, which I referred to?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I have an answer, which I’m not entirely satisfied with; there is some technical data used which I don’t entirely understand. But I can tell the hon. member that the report referred to is not a secret document; in fact, a copy of it was filed with the royal commission on electric power planning a number of months ago.

Mr. S. Smith: Thank you very much. If that’s the report, we’ll await the answer when it’s completed.

CAMPING IN PROVINCIAL PARKS

Mr. S. Smith: A question to the Minister of Natural Resources: Can the minister explain why it is he would make any statement at all on the subject of privatization of campsites, when in fact he has an Ontario Provincial Parks Council, which he lauded greatly in the Legislature on June 7, 1976, and that council, headed by Dr. Priddle, was looking at precisely this matter and already has a draft policy statement? Just for his information, I will tell the minister that Dr. Priddle says he is “appalled” and “extremely upset” that the minister would make his statement without consulting his own council.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I would refer the hon. member to the statement I made just a moment ago in connection with the direction that we’ve taken with regard to privatization. It followed the report of the Special Programme Review Committee. It was in place last year; we gained some information from it over the short term. We’re looking for more information on a longer-term basis and we’d like to add maybe one or two more this particular year.

We’ve also asked the parks council to continue its examination of that particular policy and to move ahead jointly with us.

Mr. Breithaupt: No much point now.

Mr. S. Smith: They’re not going to do very much for you now.

BROWNDALE OPERATIONS

Mr. S. Smith: A question for the Minister of Health: In view of the cancellation of the management contract between Browndale Ontario and Brown Camps residential and day school, a contract which netted Brown Camps close to $1 million a year, why has there been no decrease in the Browndale per diem, as there was in British Columbia, for example, when the management contract there was brought to an end? What’s happening to that $1 million? Why are they able to fold it over into this year’s budget?

Hon. F. S. Miller: First of all, if the hon. member will look at this year’s budget, I think he’ll find there’s absolutely no increase in the per diem over last year, when virtually every other organization dealing with us had an inflationary increase. We’ve looked fairly carefully at the costs of Browndale and we’re satisfied at the present time that we’re getting value for the money spent. As the member knows, a fair audit was done last year to determine whether people were on two payrolls. We are satisfied they were not.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, can the minister explain why he now says there was no increase, when he answered me in this House in November and said there was a three per cent increase? Furthermore, why was there no decrease the way there was in British Columbia when a similar management contract which had inflated the budget by a similar amount of money was cancelled? Why was that $1 million allowed to be folded into the next year’s contract?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I think the member is jumping to conclusions. The three per cent increase, in effect, took place because there are three per cent fewer children in the system this year for the same number of dollars.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s exactly what I was saying. A further supplementary on this particular point: Is the minister prepared now to explain to me, since the only matter that concerns him, according to his previous answer, was whether they are getting good value for the money, why he still insists that Browndale be a non-profit organization? Can he explain the logic in insisting it be non-profit, if all he cares about is whether he is getting value for the dollar?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I don’t recall ever insisting it should be non-profit.

Mr. S. Smith: The ministry does.

Hon. F. S. Miller: It does not.

Mr. S. Smith: We’ll hear more of that later.

Mr. Davidson: You are always going to do things later.

Mr. S. Smith: I know Browndale is sensitive to you. Forgive me, I have to bring it up once in a while.

Mr. Deans: We would like the investigation too.

Mr. Yakabuski: Let us find out who the directors are and what their salaries or fees were, and whether any were sitting members of the Legislature.

AIR POLLUTION AT HAMILTON

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Would the minister kindly take possession of those cloths that I am sending over to him, which contain samples of dirt taken from the house of a Mrs. Italiano on Tiffany Street in Hamilton?

Mr. Yakabuski: Is that your riding?

Mr. S. Smith: Would he, by looking at the correspondence in his own ministry, explain why it is that his ministry will not help Mrs. Italiano or any of her neighbours in obtaining some form of compensation from Canron and from Rheem Canada Limited, which foundries are responsible for the particular iron oxide and other pollutants which are ruining the siding of her particular home and her car as well?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: We have issued violation notices against both of those companies.

Mr. R. S. Smith: It is in the riding of the Minister of Correctional Services.

Hon. Mr. Ken: Unfortunately, the emissions from those plants are similar and we are having a hard time to distinguish significantly and sufficiently so that we can lay charges. These plants have been warned and they are under a control order. But once in a while, because of a breakdown in mechanical operations, they have extraordinary emissions that bother people such as Mrs. Italiano. However, I have had questions from other members from the Hamilton area about this particular situation, and we hope to correct it as soon as possible.

Mrs. Campbell: What year?

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Since the answer seems to be that the ministry is unable to determine the exact percentage of blame which will lie on the shoulders of Canron as opposed to Rheem and, consequently, the ministry is not helping any of these residents get any kind of redress for their grievances at all, isn’t that somewhat like refusing to prosecute some bank robbers because one doesn’t know which way they divided the loot?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The hon. member should realize we don’t take civil action against companies to reimburse or compensate people living in the area. We prosecute under our legislation.

Mr. Singer: It sounds like the suit against Dow.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: In the meantime, the main objective is to get rid of the problem, which we’re doing with the plants. In the meantime also, we will prosecute if the emissions continue.

Mr. Godfrey: Can the hon. minister inform us what was the date of the issuing of the violation order?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I don’t have that exact date, but it was sometime within the last six weeks.

AIR POLLUTION AT NIAGARA FALLS

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The hon. member for Niagara Falls directed a question to the Premier last Monday concerning emissions from Niagara Metals Limited.

Our staff were aware of the incident of iron oxide fall-out which occurred in this plant on September 18, 1976. The cause of the emission was attributed to a small venting stack. The plant was shut down for approximately two weeks beginning September 22 during which time the bypass stack was eliminated and the emission was redirected to a dust chamber.

A violation notice was served on the company and an information was laid for this incident under

section 8 of The Environmental Protection Act.

With regard to the question of possible health danger associated with this fall-out, it seems doubtful that this fall-out would cause a health hazard. However, our staff have forwarded the data to the Ministry of Health for their perusal and comment.

The hon. member also referred to the matter of the company’s insurance representative requesting the signing of releases. This matter was first brought to our attention through the local press last December 6 and while we have not yet obtained a copy of the form, my staff have copied the wording provided by one of the residents.

As the members know, there is a fundamental right to negotiate a contract for damages suffered for any cause. However we would assume that any person entering into such a contract would first obtain legal advice or advice from an appraiser concerning the value and substance of such a contract.

Nevertheless, the signing of this release would in no way affect the enforcement of our legislation. I have asked my legal staff to review this particular release as to its legality.

Mr. Kerrio: A supplementary: I thank the minister very much for his answer. I would pose one question and that is: Could he, could his people --

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes, I would be happy to do that.

Mr. Breaugh: Supplementary: Is the minister, in that situation and in a similar situation at Fittings Limited in Oshawa, prepared to identify the emissions as being from a particular foundry operation? The problem in identifying what the cause is is one of insurance; in most cases it is some kind of problem with either aluminum siding or automobiles. Insurance companies are now saying it is a problem of particular emissions from a plant but the ministry has been rather reluctant to identify that as the case, yet it does the sampling. Is the minister now prepared to do that so that people who have insurance claims can have their claims honoured by the company?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Certainly, in a situation such as Niagara Metals Limited in which we are prosecuting, we would have to identify the plant. We would have to have sufficient evidence to launch such a prosecution.

There may be problems in other instances when we assume there may have been emissions or fall-out from a particular plant. The problem then is to identify the cause of some damage in strict relationship to that fall-out. We can’t, I assume, do that in every case.

Mr. Swart: Has the minister seen the report from the laboratory pertaining to the iron oxide fall-out in Niagara Falls? Is he aware that substantially less than half of it is iron oxide and will it be referred to the Ministry of Health to do a serious test to see if there is any health hazard to it?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes. As I indicated in my answer we have referred the readings and the information we have of that plant to the Ministry of Health to see what degree of health hazard is involved.

Mr. B. Newman: Would the minister consider the proposition of publishing in the press the names of those corporations and polluters which are under ministerial order so the public in the area could be informed? Would such publication not encourage the company to clean up the pollution a little faster?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I could table that information in the House and I would assume it would be made public, particularly in Windsor.

[3:00]

HAMILTON GENERAL HOSPITAL

Mr. Deans: I have a question for the Minister of Health: Will the Minister of Health undertake to have his ministry investigate the current practices used in the Hamilton General Hospital for discharging patients, to determine whether it is a matter of common practice that doctors would discharge patients in their 80s and 90s to their homes when they are in need of additional care and when there’s no one in that home on a regular basis to look after them?

Hon. F. S. Miller: We’ve never really tried to have the Ministry of Health become involved in the admission and discharge processes of hospitals in the province. We’ve left that entirely to the good or bad judgement of the physicians involved. I’m sure that as pressure for active treatment beds mounts there is often pressure applied to physicians in a given institution to discharge patients who may be deemed to be inappropriately there.

In Hamilton, I would have thought there was an assessment and discharge committee functioning that was set up to avoid the very kinds of things the hon. member is talking about.

Mr. Deans: If I may, by way of supplementary question: Since the assessment operation doesn’t seem to be functioning adequately and since I have reason to know of two cases where deaths occurred in the last week of elderly patients who were sent to homes in which there were no other adults, and since I have reason to know of other cases where elderly patients, some in their 90s, were going to be sent home to apartments and empty houses, will the minister, even though it’s not his practice, ask his ministry to investigate these practices and determine whether something can be done about it?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I’m quite prepared to learn more about the matter before jumping to a conclusion, either pro or con. Certainly we’d like to offer proper care for the people there and I’d like to hear from either the health council or some authoritative agency there as to how great the problem is.

Mr. Deans: One final supplementary then: Can I assume from the minister’s answer that he will contact the health council today, since I have already brought it to the attention of his ministry on two occasions this week? Will he inquire immediately in order that we can avoid any repetition of the occurrences of last week?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I’ll do my best.

PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS

Mrs. Campbell: My question is to the Minister of Health: Some time ago I asked the minister if he would answer a question pertaining to Browndale assessments which result in placements in Viking Homes. The minister on that occasion said it had been brought to his attention and that he was investigating and would answer my question at a later date. Does he have an answer at this time, and if not, when may I expect it?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I did have an answer and I’m going to try now to give it to the hon. member accurately. If I’m wrong, I’ll correct it later, if that’s fair enough.

Mr. Roy: You can plead The Evidence Act.

Hon. F. S. Miller: We did look into the matter and we found that, in fact, student psychologists, I believe, were being used from time to time in assessing children as part of their training programme and that no charge was being made by the Browndale organization for these assessments. It was part of an educational programme, not a fee-for-service programme which I believe the hon. member implied in the first case.

An hon. member: A real vendetta.

Mrs. Campbell: I wonder if the minister would, in fact, investigate it further since the information is not that these are students in psychology but that they are student teachers working toward a PhD in the teaching profession and not in psychology.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I don’t recall that last variation. It may well be true, but is the hon. member sure they’re not teachers of psychology?

Mr. Roy: You can’t ask questions.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I’m not here to answer questions. As a supplementary, could the minister not --

Mr. Roy: But she would do a better job than you.

Mrs. Campbell: -- investigate this practice --

Hon. Mr. Davis: You don’t really believe that, Albert?

Mrs. Campbell: -- as it’s part of his ministry?

Hon. F. S. Miller: That’s another of the Goldenberg variations.

Interjections.

NEW HYDRO GENERATING PLANT

Mr. Lane: I’d like to ask the hon. Minister of Energy a question: Could the minister clarify a rumour that I’ve been hearing in recent days that the Dean Lake area near Blind River has been chosen by Ontario Hydro as the site of its proposed hydro generating plant?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Reid: You’ve got all the land bought.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Over and above that I can say I’ve had reports over the last few days too that apparently the CBC has been carrying a report in the north that that’s the case.

I can tell the hon. member that is not the case, that I don’t expect to have a report from Ontario Hydro on the subject until mid-1977, and I don’t expect there would be any decision until about mid-1978, by which time we will also have heard from the royal commission on electric power planning. So that is not the case.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Is that post election?

Mr. S. Smith: How about El Dorado for Spragge?

Mr. Wildman: Could the minister confirm whether or not the citizens’ committees that are currently carrying out site studies have narrowed down the possible sites, giving priority to Dean Lake? Is that the case? Is the minister aware of that?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am not aware of that. The hon. members for Algoma and Algoma-Manitoulin know there were five sites being considered -- one at La Cloche, another at Bruce Mines, the third area being Blind River -- within which there were three specific sites being considered. I’m not aware that they’ve narrowed it down any further than that. They may well have, but I haven’t had a report to that effect.

COURSES IN UKRAINIAN

Mr. Makarchuk: A question to the Minister of Education: About a year ago the parents’ committees of St. Josaphat’s, St. Demetrius, and the Holy Spirit Ukrainian Catholic Separate School presented to the minister a brief requesting full accreditation of the Ukrainian language as a subject from kindergarten to grade eight. Could he at this time advise the House when he is going to answer their brief and if so, what will be the nature of the reply?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think I wrote them a letter recently and said we would answer them when we had our policy on multiculturalism in education ready to be stated. At that time the answers to their questions will be answered.

Mr. Makarchuk: Supplementary: Will the minister then consider the input from their brief when he is formulating his multicultural policy?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Of course the input from that group, which I met with personally, has been part of the consideration that’s gone into developing our policy.

Mr. B. Newman: Supplementary: Is the minister considering courses for the accreditation of teachers in the Ukrainian language?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would say not to my knowledge, but I will be glad to look into the matter.

CBC FRENCH TELEVISION FILM

Mr. Roy: I have a question of the Attorney General. Knowing of the Attorney General’s concern about the spread of pornography across the province and of his whole-hearted support for the position taken by the Archbishop of Toronto in the last few weeks, has he investigated or does he plan to do anything about the showing on CBC French television on November 28 of a film called J’irai comme un cheval fou? I’ll translate that later.

Mr. Lewis: You are embarrassing Bob Welch.

Mr. Roy: I wonder if he has received any complaints about this film and whether he intends to investigate this situation and possibly lay charges against the network, which broadcast it right across the province of Ontario?

Mr. Foulds: What charges are you suggesting?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I don’t know that this is a matter that necessarily falls within our jurisdiction.

Mr. S. Smith: That hasn’t stopped you so far.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have had no complaints, but I could just suggest to the member opposite that perhaps we could persuade our colleagues in the justice committee to stay a little later one of these evenings and perhaps he’d like to arrange a showing.

Interjections.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: If I might ask, has the minister not already laid charges, for instance, against CFVO in Ottawa for broadcasting from Hull to Ottawa what was alleged to be pornographic material and are there not precedents? Is the Attorney General not in charge of the administration of The Criminal Code?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think the hon. member opposite misconceives the role of the Attorney General in this province.

Mr. S. Smith: It’s to get headlines.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The Attorney General does not lay charges.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Reid: You are in charge of headlines.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: To benefit from the wisdom of this advice under our system, the police -- the individual police departments and the individual police officers -- are vested with the very important discretion in relation to the laying of criminal charges. From time to time, we ask our police departments -- that is the Ministry of the Attorney General asks the police departments -- to review certain situations with a view to laying charges. The charges are not laid by the Ministry of the Attorney General, but by our police officers.

Mr. Roy: I know.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Well, that’s not what you said.

Mr. Roy: Tell us about the hockey violence.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Having had this matter brought to our attention I will be happy to review it with the Solicitor General (Mr. MacBeth) as to whether or not the matter should be pursued further by the police department.

Mr. Reid: That will be the end of that.

Mr. Roy: Your initiative has resulted in charges before in hockey violence.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Talk to your Grit friends in the CRTC.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Talk to your friend Pierre Juneau.

Mr. Roy: Your initiative has resulted in changes before.

HYDRO POWER REDUCTION

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, last Friday, December 3, the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville asked a question of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Irvine) which he took as notice on my behalf. It had to do with the J. Clark Keith generating station. The answer, Mr. Speaker, is as follows:

The J. Clark Keith generating station is comprised of four coal-fired units with a total installed net capacity of 254 megawatts. The station was completed in 1953 and has the lowest thermal efficiency of all coal-fired units in the Ontario Hydro system. To help stem the rapidly rising costs and because the plant did not meet the present-day air pollution requirements, a decision was taken in February, 1976, to temporarily take the units at J. Clark Keith generating station out of service.

This was accomplished in May, 1976. This decision was taken with the expectation that the Ontario Hydro load would be met during the period 1976-79, and with full knowledge that the system reserves would be reduced.

The present difficulties in meeting power demands stem from extraordinary problems with boiler support hangers at Nanticoke generating station which has made it necessary to remove three 500 megawatt units out of service -- namely, units one, three and four -- and maintain the load on the other two available units -- units five and six -- below 450 megawatts in order to reduce the stress on the hanger rods.

Thus, unexpectedly, 1,600 megawatts that Hydro had been counting on from Nanticoke generating station for the 1976 peak were unavailable. In addition, transmission limitations prevent Hydro from fully utilizing the available generation from its 2,000 megawatts oil-fired Lennox station.

The return of the J. C. Keith generating station would add only about 254 megawatts to a power system of approximately 20,000 megawatts. Hydro would still be in difficulties at the present time with or without J. Clark Keith generating station in service.

Mr. Haggerty: It was used for 20 years.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: To take J. Clark Keith generating station out of mothballs and make it available for generation would take about one month. However, until necessary modifications to the plant are made so that present-day air pollution standards can be met, Hydro is not planning the return of the J. Clark Keith generating station to service at the present time.

Since the focus of Hydro’s difficulties is at Nanticoke generating station, all available resources are being utilized to tackle the problems there. Hydro hopes to have some additional power available from that plant by December 17, 1976, with two units, which represent 1,000 megawatts of capacity, returned to full service with temporary repairs by Christmas.

Technical and economic evaluation of alternative uses for J. Clark Keith generating station have been completed, defining the required modifications to make the plant operationally and environmentally acceptable and indicating a need for generation from the plant by 1980. Recommendations in this regard will be presented to the Hydro board of directors at their meeting in December of this year.

Mr. B. Newman: A supplementary: Can the minister assure the residents and the industry in the tri-county area -- Essex, Kent and Lambton counties -- that they will not suffer from brownouts as a result of the J. Clark Keith generating station not being put into operation within the next month?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As I pointed out in my answer just completed, if the J. Clark Keith station were put back into service it would not answer the problem. As well, it would take over a month to bring it back into service and out of mothballs, after which time we should be over the December Christmas peak.

Through you Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member, I would anticipate that they will not suffer any more than any other part of the province if there has to be a reduction in the voltage or if there have to be interruptions to those industries that have interruptible A or interruptible B contracts.

Mr. Sargent: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Carleton East. Order, please. A supplementary? The member for Grey-Bruce.

Ms. Gigantes: He can’t ask --

Mr. Sargent: Are these microphones working?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes.

Mr. Sargent: Why don’t you get a good sound system?

Mr. Speaker: We can hear you. Will the hon. member continue please.

Hon. B. Stephenson: You don’t need one.

Mr. Sargent: I can sell you one.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I believe you.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the hon. member place his question?

Mr. Sargent: A supplementary to the Minister of Energy: Why does he put the fix on the people of Ontario? In the press release on December 1 he said the Nanticoke situation could be closed down until after Christmas; then there were the brownouts and next day one of the units came on-stream at Nanticoke --

[3:15]

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Sargent: Okay, I’m talking about energy.

Mr. Speaker: Order please, it’s a good question, but nothing to do with the original question which had to do with this particular power plant that’s in mothballs in Windsor. You may ask the question later.

Ms. Gigantes: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. I’d like to see if the minister can explain to the House why it was that Hydro instituted a voltage cut on December 3, when there were interruptible contracts still in operation which would have more than covered that voltage cut.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I don’t know that that is correct. I will check the figures we have as to which were cut. As the hon. member knows there was a three per cent reduction in the voltage which was imperceptible in any part of the province. If in fact that was the case, I would imagine it was in order to assist those industries to keep operating because, as the member knows, a great many people on the work force have been inconvenienced because of the interruptions.

Ms. Gigantes: Supplementary: I wonder if, for the general enlightenment of the House, the minister would table the daily operating reports of Ontario Hydro for the last two weeks, covering the period from December 1 to December 3 in particular, with all the relevant details on purchases, on sales, on interruptible contracts and so on, and which generators were in operation producing how much.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I think, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member, through her phone calls to Hydro on a daily basis -- of which I get reports -- does get that information.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: But I’ll be glad to get the information and to indicate how much Quebec has cut off from our contract, how much we bought from New York or whatever.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Erie.

Mr. Haggerty: Supplementary of the Minister of Energy: Will the minister reinstate the select committee dealing with the Ontario Hydro operation -- particularly on the matter concerning the short-fall of energy at the present time? Will he reinstate that committee to look into it?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary.

Mr. MacDonald: I wonder if the minister in getting that information would get the specific information as to what proportion of the B interruptible contracts were really interrupted and what proportion of the A were interrupted?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That varies from day to day, depending upon the peak. Some days all of the Bs are interrupted, some days only some of them and some of the As. It was a different mix each day, but I’ll get all that information.

Ms. Gigantes: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I understand there may have been some confusion in the response the Minister of Energy gave to my question when he talked about reports of my daily phone calls to Hydro. I hope he’s not going to give us a report on reports of my daily phone calls to Hydro, I want more than that. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member has made her point. It is not really a matter of privilege --

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I will just say I --

Mr. Speaker: Order please -- it’s just correcting something.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I will get the information as I promised to the member, hopefully in as much detail as she’s interested in.

Mr. Kerrio: A supplementary to the Minister of Energy, Mr. Minister, is the minister aware that the --

[Failure of sound system.]

Mr. Kerrio: Am I coming through, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I can hear you.

Hon. W. Newman: It sounds like you have a short.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Are you running out of power?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, there is too much background noise now.

Mr. Kerrio: My question is to the Minister of Energy: Is the minister aware that due to the cutbacks in power he interrupted the heavy power users in the Niagara Peninsula, particularly in the abrasives industries; that they now have in fact a layoff of 40 to 50 men; and that there is some speculation as to whether some of the heavy investments they were going to make in those plants would rather be made in the United States because of the interruptions, and the decrease in available power?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am aware, as I indicated in one of my earlier responses, that some industries in the province that have been hit several days in a row have had to lay some people off, and obviously that’s of a great concern.

I have not heard from anyone to suggest that, because of the problems brought on by the low water levels and the difficulties of the Nanticoke generating station, any investment decisions are being put off. They realize that December is usually the annual peak in demand. They also realize that the utilities around us are having some problems as well -- witness the fact that we are selling power, or have been, I am not sure if we are today, to Manitoba; Quebec had to cut back its sales to us and in the United States some of the authorities have difficulty during their peak, which usually comes in the summer.

I would doubt very much if those kinds of decisions would be based strictly on a problem isolated to a few days in December, 1976.

Mr. Speaker: The question period has expired.

PETITIONS

Mr. Warner: I have the privilege to enter, on behalf of 1,772 citizens, a petition protesting the Ontario Highway Transport Board’s decision of November 22, 1976, which granted a licence for the purpose of operating bus routes between Buffalo, Toronto and Sudbury to the American-controlled Greyhound Lines of Canada Limited. The petitioners state --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think the hon. member has stated the petition.

An hon. member: No, he hasn’t.

Mr. Warner: The petition itself is worded to say that the Ontario Highway Transport Board has, in effect, limited Gray Coach operations throughout the province and such diminishing routes will be accompanied by cutbacks in staff at a time of high unemployment in Ontario. The petitioners believe that the decision of the Ontario Highway Transport Board should be reversed and they petition the government of Ontario to reverse the decision of the Ontario Highway Transport Board.

Mr. Stong: I have three petitions to present to the House today. The first is to the Lieutenant Governor and the House, endorsed by me, over the signature of 47 persons, indicating that the undersigned are against Greyhound taking over the Gray Coach routes, specifically Buffalo, Toronto and Sudbury.

The second petition, addressed to the Lieutenant Governor and the House reads: “We, the undersigned, oppose a decision by the Ontario Highway Transport Board to allow Greyhound Lines of Canada Limited” --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We can’t hear the hon. member.

Mr. Stong: Thank you, Mr. Speaker -- “to compete with Gray Coach lines, an Ontario firm, on some Ontario runs. We believe it to be contrary to the best interests of Ontario people, particularly those in the central and southern area to allow such rights to an American-based company at a time when employment is of such importance and economic considerations may force Gray Coach to go out of business. Gray Coach is more than just transportation. Their chartered services and personnel have made group trips great occasions for many travellers in the Markham area.” That is signed by 35 persons.

My third petition reads the same and it is signed by 25 persons. On behalf of these people I present these three petitions.

Mr. Roy: Is that the issue you are flip-flopping on?

Mr. Hodgson: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to present a petition and table it with the Clerk of the Ontario Legislature. It is directed to the Premier and the Minister of Transportation and Communications --

An hon. member: A rebellion in the ranks.

Mr. Conway: That will keep you on the back bench.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for York North is presenting a petition.

Mr. Hodgson: -- on behalf of approximately 500 residents of the towns of Aurora --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. member continue?

Mr. Hodgson: -- and Newmarket and area. They are objecting to the Ontario Highway Transport Board’s granting a franchise to Greyhound Lines of Canada Limited.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Presenting reports.

REPORTS

Mr. Edighoffer from the standing miscellaneous estimates committee reported the following resolutions:

Resolved: That supply in the following supplementary amount and to defray the expenses of the Office of the Assembly be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977:

Office of the Assembly

Office of the Assembly programme $1,493,000

Resolved: That supply in the following supplementary amount and to defray the expenses of the Office of the Ombudsman be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977.

Office of the Ombudsman

Office of the Ombudsman Program .... $509,000

Resolved: That supply in the following supplementary amount and to defray the expenses of the Office of Provincial Auditor be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977.

Office of the Provincial Auditor

Administration of the Audit Act and Statutory Audits Programme ......... $ 95,000

Mr. Germa from the standing public accounts committee presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted:

As provided in

section 35 of The Legislative Assembly Act, the House authorize Mr. Speaker to issue his warrant for the production to the public accounts committee of the records of the Ontario Hospital Insurance Plan respecting payments of income to individual licensed practitioners in excess of $100,00 during the fiscal year 1974-75; that records should include the name, address, nature of practice and any income derived from clinical billings to the practitioner.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

CONSUMER INFORMATION ACT

Mr. Cunningham moved first reading of Bill 186,

An Act respecting Consumer Information.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for mandatory disclosure of information regarding material defect or the malfunctioning of a product; the prohibition of the manufacturing, selling or distributing of an unsafe product; manufacturer research into the safety and functioning of products; and reimbursement for replacing of or repairing a defective, malfunctioning or unsafe product by the manufacturer of that product.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

OHTB BUS LICENCE

Mr. S. Smith moved that the regular business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance under standing order 30, namely, the devastating impact on the bus service to smaller communities that will result from the Ontario Highway Transport Board decision to allow the operation of Greyhound Bus Lines on Gray Coach bus routes.

Mr. Speaker: I might say that the hon. member did give ample notice of his intention to introduce this special motion and I point out that each party will have five minutes to explain its position for or against this particular motion. I presume the hon. member for Hamilton West will lead off.

[3:30]

Mr. S. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I feel we have before us a matter of sufficient urgency, particularly the lateness with which we find ourselves in terms of when this session is likely to come to a close.

It seems to me the government has acted in this regard, with regard to the Ontario Highway Transport Board, in a way that urgently requires public scrutiny. I am particularly concerned. You may realize, Mr. Speaker, that it is two weeks ago today that I first raised this matter in this Legislature, and during that two weeks, until yesterday, we had received constant assurances from both the Premier and the Minister of Transportation and Communications that they supported the basic thrust of the OHTB decision, that they supported the idea of this competition and free enterprise.

I would say to you that despite the last-minute partial recantation of yesterday by the Minister of Transportation and Communications we have here a very urgent matter.

An asset that belongs to the taxpayers of Metro has been depreciated here by approximately $10 million -- maybe more; that’s a conservative, if you’ll forgive the expression, estimate -- and in fact that particular asset value has simply been transferred over to Greyhound Bus Lines, controlled by American interests in the private sector. This represents a fundamental change of policy in the province of Ontario where heretofore no major inter-urban routes have been permitted to be overrun in the sense that there would be more than one major carrier on the ordinary route between two major centres.

This has been the policy of the government up to now. The decision of the Ontario Highway Transport Board represents an absolutely fundamental change in this policy and such changes should not be made simply by the board but should be considered by the Legislature.

We wouldn’t be quite as concerned about the need for an emergency debate except for the fact that Greyhound continues to operate at this very moment services on the lines which were granted to it by the Ontario Highway Transport Board. The government did accept finally, yesterday, that there is something that needs to be looked into.

They pointed out, basically that they’ve lost confidence I suspect in their own board because they say that the board failed, basically, to look at the matter of whether the small towns would be affected with regard to their bus service, and, similarly, whether the economic viability of Gray Coach was being hampered in some way. Surely, by virtue of looking at the previous decision of the board in 1961, we see that it usually does include those criteria in its decision-making process, and if it failed to include those criteria one wonders what the board is doing anyhow.

We feel that the uncertainty felt by the employees who may now lose their jobs -- and, certainly, even if they don’t lose their jobs and are transferred into city routes on the TTC, might certainly lose their seniority and their pension rights and it’s these employees who now see unions in Buffalo and Winnipeg clamouring for the jobs in Greyhound, which will supplant the Gray Coach drivers -- we feel that their uncertainty needs to be put to an end; and, similarly, the uncertainty of the small towns; places that are along the way from here to Owen Sound, from here to the Barrie area, the Gravenhurst area and so on.

We feel, also, that the whole competence of the Ontario Highway Transport Board is called into serious question and needs to be discussed immediately. Time is running out on the session, as I’ve said. The Premier has said, according to published reports, that my motion, somehow or other, is improper because the matter is presently before the cabinet. If, in fact, he did say that then I can simply say to you, Mr. Speaker that that is utter nonsense, if the matter is being considered before the cabinet there’s no reason in the world why members of the Legislature should not be given the opportunity to express themselves and the views of their constituents.

This is a matter in which the House has a vital interest. It’s a matter of great concern to the entire province of Ontario because, as I say, a public asset has been handed over. The spectre of public subsidy looms before us. The small towns are threatened with regard to their bus service. A fundamental change in policy has occurred; and the cabinet, which has consistently been stonewalling in front of this Legislature, despite questions, for two weeks and now, finally, comes out with a very weak and puny statement yesterday which by no means allays the fears that I have and that members of the public have regarding this shameful deal.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, we energetically support the request for a debate on a matter of urgent public importance, and we support the motion, although let me say that we really didn’t think we would have to. Frankly, we feel that the government’s position is entirely insupportable, that the government should have moved before now in order to make this kind of initiative unnecessary on the part of the Legislature. However, because it is urgent and pressing, we will support it on the following four grounds:

No. 1, that the Ontario Highway Transport Board has clearly exceeded the authority given to it, and that it is making decisions which should be made by a government not an administrative tribunal.

No. 2, that the information acquired in the interim period relating to the dollar turnaround for Gray Coach, relating to the absence of service which will surely flow for small communities, relating to the jobs which are put in jeopardy, indicates clearly and urgently that this is a matter which must be dealt with by the Legislature with dispatch.

No. 3, that we cannot surrender, as has been indicated, a public asset to a major American conglomerate, frankly, whose corporate acquisitions and process of takeover in the United States and other jurisdictions is ominous and menacing and should not be permitted in the province of Ontario. In fact, if the government had taken the time to look at the way Greyhound has operated in the 50 years it has existed, between 1926 and 1976, in the United States jurisdiction, it would have had significant qualms about allowing it to overrun the only profitable routes which Gray Coach operates.

No. 4, may I suggest very strongly that the other reason this is urgent is that because once again, perhaps inadvertently, but nonetheless forcefully, we are in the process of raising a threat to the viability of small and rural communities in the province of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You don’t believe that?

Mr. Lewis: That’s right, that’s right.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, come on.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s true.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I could understand it over there.

Mr. Lewis: I want to put to the government, I want to put -- I hope we are recording this unsolicited agitation on the part of the Premier.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is not unsolicited; it has been solicited.

Mr. Lewis: May I say, Mr. Speaker, that if you are going to take away railway service, if you are going to close hospitals, if you are going to shut down arenas, then you don’t terminate bus routes gratuitously. It’s as simple as that; and that, too, requires an urgent response from this Legislature. That’s why we support the debate at this time.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The hon. Attorney General has the floor, I might point out.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear that so far as the government of which I am a member is concerned we welcome a full-scale public debate of this issue. However, I want to say at this time, I don’t intend to direct any remarks one way or the other in relation to the wisdom or otherwise of the decision of the Ontario Highway Transport Board. Unlike some of the members opposite, I am rather interested in having all the facts before me before I am called upon to exercise my own judgement at the appropriate time.

Certainly, I have no intention at this point in time in indulging in some of the rather unctuous sanctimony that I’ve heard in the last few minutes from across the aisle.

Mr. Conway: What about the member for York North (Mr. Hodgson)?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I can say, as an Attorney General, I am concerned about the propriety of a debate about a matter that is under appeal before the cabinet and my remarks will be restricted to that issue.

Mr. Renwick: You should be, you have been wrong --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have been advised directly by the general counsel for the Toronto Transit Commission that the formal appeal is forthcoming and will certainly arrive at the beginning of the week.

Mr. Singer: It is not in yet?

Mr. Nixon: So everything is on ice, eh? That is the end of the debate?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: In my respectful view, I suggest that it is improper to ask those who will have the ultimate responsibility of making the decision on all the facts to participate in a debate prior to having all the facts before us.

Mr. Breithaupt: Don’t participate then; just listen.

Mr. S. Smith: Don’t participate then.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Surely the legislation that was passed by this House makes it quite clear --

Mr. Peterson: You don’t have to say anything; you can let the Premier speak.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not --

Mr. Breithaupt: Say nothing. Just listen.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: -- that the executive council should be in a position to make a free and unfettered decision based on all of the evidence that will be before it at the appropriate time.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: -- and particularly when the Minister of Transportation and Communications has announced that the Ontario Highway Transport Board will be having a further review of the matter.

Mr. Nixon: Meanwhile the buses are running.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Certainly the information that will be forthcoming in a public manner not only will be of interest to the public as a whole but obviously will be relevant to the executive council in its deliberations at the appropriate time.

Mr. Conway: Then suspend Greyhound temporarily.

Mr. Nixon: Except you welcome it.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I simply say that at the very least a debate at this time would be premature without having all the evidence that was before the Ontario Highway Transport Board --

Mr. Conway: Tory arrogance.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: -- or indeed without having additional information that would be forthcoming in the public hearings that have already been announced. At the other end of the scale, this House wants to indulge in creating an appearance --

Mr. Renwick: This House is not indulging in anything.

Mr. Conway: You should talk. You should talk.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: -- for the interested parties we are prepared to prejudge the matter --

Mr. Nixon: The minister already prejudged it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: -- that we are going to ignore entirely the protections that are afforded to the parties --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think we’ve requested order several times this afternoon. The minister has about 30 seconds left in his time.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: If the desire of the House is to run roughshod over the rights of those people, then that will be the members’ responsibility.

Mr. Reid: Oh, baloney.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: And to cloak it in the sort of nonsense that I’ve heard in the last few minutes for purely partisan and political motives --

Mr. Nixon: Eddie Goodman is looking after their rights.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: -- in my view simply is not in the best interests of the public of Ontario.

Mr. Nixon: Ed and John Robarts will look after them.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege. Whatever unctuous sanctimony I or others engaged in, it is as nothing compared to the way in which the Attorney General views the degraded value of this parliament in saying we shouldn’t debate this subject before it is judged.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We have had the three positions put forward.

Mr. Lewis: The minister has a pretty contemptuous view of the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. MacDonald: For once the executive branch is being brought to heel.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I listened very carefully to all the arguments put forward and there’s no doubt in my mind that there is sufficient urgency and public importance connected with the matter for all the reasons -- and I’m not going to summarize them -- as put forward by both the member for Hamilton West and the Leader of the Opposition.

But the Speaker has to abide by the rules of the House, and I would just point out one very important rule, which I’m sure is especially important for those who have any knowledge of legal things -- and, of course I don’t pretend to have --

Mr. Peterson: Don’t make a ruling then.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order 16(7)(ii) states: “In debate, a member will be called to order by the Speaker if he” -- and I go over to 7(ii) of that -- “refers to any matter that is before any quasi-judicial, administrative or investigative body constituted by the House or by or under the authority of

an Act of the Legislature where any person may be prejudiced in such matter by the reference.”

[3:45]

As I understand the situation, this matter has been referred to the Ontario Highway Transport Board, if I have the correct name, which is a body established by

an Act of this Legislature and, therefore, I will have to rule against this debate at this time.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: No, that’s the ruling.

Mr. S. Smith: On that point, if I can speak to the --

Mr. Speaker: If somebody wishes to challenge the ruling that’s a different matter but that’s the ruling.

Mr. S. Smith: With regret then -- I would rather speak to the point in a spirit -- but if I’m not allowed to do that, I’ll simply have to challenge your ruling. I think you’re incorrect in your

interpretation, with regret, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I probably anticipated that, too. I shall put the question. The Speaker has made a ruling and it’s been objected to.

Those in favour of the Speaker’s ruling will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

Then I shall put the next question, and that question is: Shall the debate proceed?

Those in favour of the debate proceeding will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

The debate shall proceed and, according to the rules, each member has 10 minutes to present his arguments in favour of the proposition. Who is the lead-off speaker? The member for Hamilton West.

Before we start, I believe the cameras have disappeared from the Legislature. May we have the lights turned down please? Thank you.

The hon. member for Hamilton West; his time starts now.

Mr. S. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’ve been very concerned about how it is that a board such as the Ontario Highway Transport Board, which has a long and distinguished record in the province of Ontario, would suddenly come to make such a tremendously new policy whereby it decides that there would be more than one carrier on an interurban bus route.

It’s not particularly my own opinion that overrunning inter-urban bus routes are to be avoided. We have the opinion, as well, of the Treasurer of Ontario (Mr. McKeough) who wrote to the hon. Minister of Transportation and Communications on March 15, 1976, because he was concerned about what he says is a reference to free enterprise. He says: “Bus services have always been controlled to maximize benefit to the public.”

Similar arguments were made by Greyhound itself when it was opposing the application of Murray Hill to run between Montreal and New York, to overrun the Greyhound line. It argued very vociferously at that time,

I would like to quote from “A Case for Exclusive Territory Bus Franchises” by Peter C. Briant and Eric G. Walker. This particular quote points out: “Regulation is designed to save consumers from exploitation through price and if necessary to guarantee the provision of vital service at a satisfactory level.”

I quote the following point:

“If there were to be free competition along the main lines of travel between large urban centres, we could expect that the profits on the high density lines would decline and service on the low density lines would probably not exist. Therefore, it would certainly seem to be desirable, in terms of public convenience and necessity, to offset losses on low density lines by profits on those of high density.”

The argument is very well known; it’s very well known even by the Highway Transport Board itself which, in 1961, ruled against Greyhound’s attempts to overrun Gray Coach. At that time the board said, “The board accepts the evidence in that it feels that the profitability of the operation of Gray Coach between Toronto and Sudbury would be adversely affected if this application were granted.”

As I asked in the House the other day, what has happened to justify this? How can the government permit the OHTB to make a decision of this kind and then try to stonewall us for two weeks while we discuss it in the Legislature? How can the government risk the remaining transportation link which the small towns in Ontario have? How can it jeopardize jobs at a time of high unemployment in this province?

How can they justify giving away an asset that brings in revenue profit of about $800,000 to $1 million a year? They have made Gray Coach, which belongs to the people, a wounded bird basically.

I ask you to look with me, Mr. Speaker, at some of the history of what went on here. It is of interest that the whole matter seems to have arisen in the last year and a half. The application was filed in November 1975 by Greyhound. That’s very interesting. I want you to know that on May 8 of this year, Ontario Northland also applied to overrun that particular route. Ontario Northland is an arm of the government, I remind you, Mr. Speaker, and answers directly to the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Yet, interestingly enough, as of the end of October just before the decision came in in favour of Greyhound, Ontario Northland withdrew its application to overrun Grey Coach.

Mr. Nixon: That’s interesting.

Mr. S. Smith: It’s a very interesting series of coincidences. And let me draw your attention to some more of these interesting coincidences, Mr. Speaker.

After the application was filed in November, 1975, hearings were scheduled for April and May. In the month of March, an

article appeared in which the Minister of Transportation and Communications was quoted as advising Hamilton to sell Canada Coach, a bus company in a similar situation to that of Gray Coach in Toronto. He advised them to sell Canada Coach and said that really those in the city “should not be in the intercity bus business.” That is what he is quoted as having said.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I don’t believe I ever advised the city of Hamilton to sell Canada Coach. It may have been discussed or suggested at a meeting with the representatives of Hamilton, but I don’t believe I ever advised them that they should or should not sell the operation.

Mr. Deans: You were happy when they said they would.

Mr. S. Smith: I am sure the minister can make that point later on. The mayor of Hamilton at the time quoted the minister as saying: “He told us the city should not be in the intercity bus business and neither should the province.”

At that point, Mr. Mallette of the TTC made a note of that particular

article and wondered what was going on. First there was the application to overrun, then the statement that people like Gray Coach shouldn’t be in that business at all. Interestingly enough, within the last year, he has received three letters -- from Voyageur, from Charterways and from Greyhound -- inquiring about the possibility of purchasing Gray Coach. You’ll appreciate that the purchase price of Gray Coach has gone down substantially since this particular decision has been made, because the profitability of Gray Coach has been removed and it’s been turned instead into a money-losing proposition which will probably have to be subsidized by the people of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Has it been sold?

Mr. S. Smith: This is a very interesting situation in which offers or inquiries about buying it happen at roughly the same time as Ontario’s Minister of Transportation and Communications suggests that maybe the city shouldn’t be in that business. Now we find that a decision comes in which is unparalleled in the OHTB history. A totally different policy is being adopted from that which has previously been the case in Ontario.

We know very well that Voigt was allowed to overrun on the Kitchener to Toronto bus route, and we know also of the executive service that goes from Toronto to London; but both of these are horses of a different colour completely from the existing ordinary services on the major interurban routes. There is no other instance of a major interurban route which has been permitted to be overrun in this way.

What we have now are situations where the small communities are threatened, where the public of Ontario is being robbed of a $10-million asset that rightfully belongs to them. We have a situation where the taxpayers may have to make this up in terms of financing and subsidizing the deficit. We have a situation where the cabinet sits back and permits Greyhound to continue to operate.

Greyhound brought down a good many witnesses, as you know, and put them up in the various hotels in Toronto, and these witnesses came forward with their information. It’s of great interest that a good many of these witnesses live between Sault Ste. Marie and Sudbury, which is serviced by Greyhound. They admit they were told by Greyhound that if they supported Greyhound’s application to run between Sudbury and Toronto, then they would be able to get certain local services in places like Espanola, Blind River and Iron Bridge.

They didn’t understand that Greyhound has the power to give those services right now -- and that it had nothing to do with Gray Coach whatsoever that those services were not being provided.

It’s perfectly clear that what is happening here is that the citizens of Ontario are being asked now to subsidize an American-controlled giant corporation. I ask you to consider, Mr. Speaker, this sequence of events in which, little by little, the Ontario Highway Transport Board seems to have found itself in a situation where it was in some form of acquiescence with what seems to have been a change in the fundamental thrust of government policy. I have to ask seriously how that could have happened.

That’s a question which we will probably not be able to answer today but it is one which will stay in my mind for some time, because this is altogether too odd a sequence of coincidences. It seems very clear to me that the government, or certain members of the government, have decided that intercity transportation is no longer to be a franchised operation but rather is to be a competitive one.

If the government is that keen on competition and if the government thinks that competition will, somehow or other, improve the services to the people living along the express routes, then it might be worth trying. It might be worth trying some form of competition -- doing the experiment. But, for heaven’s sake, why experiment with the one profit-making asset that belongs to the public? The government wants to overrun somebody? Go and overrun Voyageur on Toronto to Ottawa and let’s sit back and see whether the competition --

Interjection.

Mr. S. Smith: Go and see whether the competition will in fact be very helpful.

An hon. member: Are you for that, Albert?

Mr. S. Smith: Let’s see it overrun Greyhound.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Speak to your colleague, speak to Albert.

Mr. S. Smith: Why does it pick as the first bus line that is going to be overrun the one that belongs --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Stuart, you are priceless. Interjections.

Mr. S. Smith: Well, I wonder though whether there is a price for the Premier; that’s the question. I may be priceless but he may not be.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Shame.

An hon. member: You walked into that one.

Hon. Mr. Davis: On a point of personal privilege. I assume the member for Hamilton West is suggesting that there was something improper in my activities or those of a minister of the Crown as they relate to this particular decision.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. S. Smith: I didn’t say that.

Hon. B. Stephenson: That is exactly what he was suggesting.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is exactly what he said.

Hon. J. R. Smith: Withdraw.

Mr. Eaton: Withdraw.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I say, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should apologize --

An hon. member: Sit down.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and apologize immediately.

Mr. S. Smith: I didn’t say that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Come on, be a man.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, the Premier referred to me as priceless and I suggested there may or may not be any price for him at all. The term I should have used for him --

Interjections.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Could we have some order please?

Mr. S. Smith: The term I should have used for him was valueless. If I’m priceless, he is valueless.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Come on. I know exactly what you said and I know exactly what you intended.

Mr. S. Smith: Well, that’s very interesting.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Conway: Well, what did the Premier intend?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Just because the member for Renfrew North might behave that way, it doesn’t mean that everyone else does.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. If the hon. member for Hamilton West will direct his questions and his remarks to the Chair --

Mr. Sargent: Tell that to the Premier.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: -- there will be less chance of the Premier intervening.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I agree with you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I certainly did not mean to cast any aspersions on the honesty of the Premier.

Mr. Roy: That is not our style, you know that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What do you mean, it is not your style?

Mr. Roy: That is not our style and you know it.

Mr. S. Smith: I would point out to you then, Mr. Speaker, that what we have is a situation where somehow or other there has been a radical departure in the Ontario Highway Transport Board and what I have to ask you, Mr. Speaker --

Interjection.

Mr. S. Smith: -- is how we are to assess why it is that the Ontario Highway Transport Board has now been accused by the Minister of Transportation and Communications of having failed to consider vital data --

Hon. Mr. Snow: That is not right.

Mr. S. Smith: -- namely, the effect that this might have on the small towns --

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

Mr. S. Smith: -- and the effects that this might have on the financial viability of Gray Coach. The decision must surely be overturned by the cabinet.

Mr. Roy: You like to talk about flip-flops, the Premier looks bad on this one.

Mr. Philip: It is a pleasure to speak on this issue, which is not only of vital importance to those who use Gray Coach and Greyhound Lines, but also the taxpayers who are concerned about the possibility of picking up the cost of a decision for an experiment which is of questionable value.

The real issue in this recent fiasco is not one of personalities, it is one of policy. In this case the real issue is not that the government has changed its transportation policy, as has been alleged by some members of this House, but rather that the government has failed to develop a clearly defined policy.

[4:00]

It is quite apparent to those of us who served on the select committee on the transportation of goods that much of the criticism we heard against the transport board has little to do with the quality of the decision-making per se and more to do with the fact that the transport board is making decisions in a policy vacuum. In fact, not only is there a policy vacuum, but there is also a communications vacuum between the transportation ministry and the transport board.

We know that the transport board has been making decisions that it clearly has no authority to make. The fact that the chairman of the transport board periodically issues temporary operating authority to transport companies is a clear example of where the board, in a vacuum of direction from the ministry, has taken authority that was never given to it by the government or by the Legislature.

What is clearly needed is a statement by this government as to whether the transport board is an administrative or a judicial body, or a combination of both and in what combination. What is clearly needed is a well defined transportation policy for Ontario, and this policy we feel would have as a central principle, the principle of cross-subsidization. This is the principle that is accepted throughout North America and a principle that was accepted by the transport board in its famous decision in 1961.

During the last Transportation estimates, the minister boasted that Ontario had one of the best systems of primary and secondary roads in the world. We frankly don’t agree with that. We don’t think that it has one of the best. We think that it has the best. If this, in fact, is the case then it is all the more reason why this government must be blamed for not developing an integrated, public passenger transportation system in this province. People are often amazed at the fact that we don’t have the public transit or rail systems that are evident in Europe.

The alternative is not rail or nothing, the alternative and the problem we face in Ontario is to use what we do have, namely the excellent highway grids, and to develop a public transportation programme in which bus service would be a major cornerstone. The government has failed to do this and the result has been the kind of fiasco that we have today -- the possible loss of jobs, the loss of service, and in the government’s case, the loss of face.

Mr. Deans: Never in history has it been proved.

Mr. Philip: Why has the government failed to develop the kind of bus service here in Ontario which would be equal to German rail system, especially when it takes credit for developing the infrastructure.

Were this done I suspect the Gray Coach drivers would not be worrying about losing service. In fact, many communities such as those in northern Ontario which now complain of inadequate service would be serviced, and there would be more driver jobs than now exist.

No one can blame Mr. Shoniker if he changed his mind from 1961. In the vacuum of direction he did what he thought he had to do. He acted as though he were the cabinet. There’s no clear indication in the minister’s statement on December 8 that the government has any clear policy on people transportation. I assumed when I read the statement that the minister was giving the transport board some guidance. In reviewing it, this is not the case. When I called the ministry and asked for a copy of the terms of reference or the directions which I assumed he would have supplied to Mr.

Shoniker, I was told that none were given. The Public Commercial Vehicles Act and The Public Vehicles Act have few clues about what public necessity and convenience are. Statements by the government have never cast any light on this. The board has not been required over the years to issue written reasons for all its decisions, so one cannot even find out from the transport board.

The fact is, then, that

section 17 of The Highway Transport Act -- and under which this review will take place -- does little either to clear the muddy waters and give us any kind of direction or give the transport board any kind of direction on which to judge this case.

If the Energy Board were asked to make decisions affecting the distribution of energy without guidance, everyone would be horrified, but by tradition, by the failure of successive Ministers of Transportation and Communications to show leadership, the government is now expecting us to swallow this kind of sloppy decision-making in the case of passenger bus transit. The government’s failure to act is also evident in that it has made no decision to allow Gray Coach to carry on with its traditional service until the review has been completed.

How much of the taxpayers’ money will be wasted in the interval at this time when this government talks about austerity? It is time for the cabinet to act like a cabinet and for the transport board to act like a transport board and not vice versa.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Grey-Bruce.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I thought I was going to have the opportunity to speak for my party?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: You can if you wish. I was waiting for you to stand so I could recognize you. The hon. member for Oakville.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I am glad you remembered where Oakville is, Mr. Speaker. I would like to --

Mr. Deans: You have bus service there, too.

Hon. Mr. Snow: We have an excellent bus service run by Gray Coach, too, under contract.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Everybody will have an opportunity to participate. The member for Oakville has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I would like at this time to clarify my position in what has become a very highly emotional issue regarding the granting of three certificates of necessity to Stock Brothers Bus Lines of Markham, Greyhound Lines of Canada and Eastern Canadian Greyhound. The three certificates of necessity granted them direct route rights between Metro Toronto and Barrie, Metro and Sudbury, and Metro and the Niagara frontier respectively.

To begin with, I want to reiterate what I said in my statement to this House a week ago today. The certificates were issued only on the basis that the public’s interest should come first. I believe, as I did then, that the sole reason for the issuance of these certificates was to provide the public with adequate service. Not only should it be adequate but it should encourage Ontario travellers to use buses and not discourage them simply because express routes are not available.

I don’t believe I should have to remind this Legislature that buses are our most economical users of energy and that it is in everyone’s interest to encourage bus ridership. Nor should I have to say that the witnesses at the Ontario Highway Transport Board’s hearing expressed a strong definite desire for express service.

On top of that kind of evidence which, I remind the House, was not countered by contrary witnesses at the time, I have received numerous telegrams and letters from northern Ontario municipal leaders, residents and even union officials, substantiating this desire.

With reference to those hearings, which were carried out over seven full days of hearings before two OHTB members, there was more than adequate opportunity for executives from Gray Coach or the Amalgamated Transit Union as well as the general public to express their opinions.

I can honestly say I am still convinced, on the basis of the evidence put before and reviewed by the board, that the board’s decision was correct. The decision, regardless of what members have been told, is not a radical departure from our transportation policies.

For example, between Hearst and Thunder Bay, Grey Goose and Greyhound are in direct competition and they continue to exist. There is a similar situation between Toronto and London where Charterways, Gray Coach and Greyhound are in competition. Between Sault Ste. Marie and Wawa, Greyhound --

Mr. S. Smith: Another major urban service.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- and the Ontario Northland operate on the same route. Between Oshawa and Toronto, both Gray Coach and Voyageur travel the same route -- I suppose nobody rides between Oshawa and Toronto.

Mr. S. Smith: Nobody cares about commuter routes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Hamilton West has spoken in this debate.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The route between North Bay and Toronto is covered by both Gray Coach and the Ontario Northland. There are several more but I would not take the time of the debate to list them. I therefore cannot understand why Gray Coach cannot live with competition, as outlined, when the three certificates of public necessity and need were granted.

Mr. S. Smith: The Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) knows it. Ask him.

Hon. Mr. Snow: To put it another way, if a bus company which has operated for so many years cannot keep its ridership the first time some competition appears, and according to the statements appearing in the media that is what is happening, then it couldn’t have built up a very dedicated ridership. If those statements are in fact true, then perhaps the Ontario Highway Transport Board’s decision was correct. There was a need for adequate service.

Mr. Kerrio: That isn’t what the Minister of Transport says.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I can only repeat that I see no radical departure from our policy when the OHTB provides for this kind of controlled competition and when it offers the residents of Ontario, and in particular in the north, a wider choice or more adequate service, as you prefer.

My personal philosophy, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is that competition is good for the consumer. I do understand the concern for the dollar position of Gray Coach and the resulting total effect on the company’s drivers and other employees as well as on the residents of smaller communities who could be left without service, should routes be abandoned. But why didn’t Gray Coach executives express these concerns which involved their operations at the OHTB hearings?

Mr. S. Smith: They did.

Hon. Mr. Snow: No one to my knowledge has come forward with any explanation on that subject. It was my concerns -- and, yes, the sudden emergence of these concerns -- that prompted me yesterday to request the OHTB to further review this case on the basis not only of its effect on the possible reduction of service between many communities, but to explore all the available alternatives.

Mr. Conway: Including politics.

Hon. Mr. Snow: As well, I have requested that the board study the real effect of the Gray Coach operation, including those points brought up by the Amalgamated Transit Union. However, I must remind the Legislature that the chairman of the OHTB makes specific reference to the limited fiscal information that Gray Coach executives were able to bring forward at the hearings back in April.

I understand that in the past month -- in fact as far back as 1973 -- the TTC management has given more than cursory thought to the possible sale of the entire Gray Coach operation. I am led further to believe that a number of months ago the TTC commissioned a study to evaluate the future of Gray Coach. While I am not aware of the results of this study, I would have to assume that any such study may have been initiated because of the possibility of a sale, and that it would have taken into consideration such matters as its effect on its drivers and their futures.

If this information is available, why wasn’t it brought to light at the hearings or at least before the certificates of necessity were approved?

I personally want to have the opportunity to meet with the TTC officials, with the Gray Coach officials, with Greyhound officials, with the board of directors of the Motor Coach Association, and with the members and executive of the Amalgamated Transit Union, both local 113 and the Canadian representatives. In order to do this and not to appear to be hearing evidence out of court, as one might say, I propose to hold these meetings personally in the next few weeks and to make my recommendations to cabinet.

I will refrain from sitting on the legislation committee, of which I am a member from cabinet, when the appeal of the Ontario Highway Transport Board decision is considered by that committee.

Mr. Conway: That is a double twist.

Mr. Good: We said a week ago you shouldn’t.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I realize that it is very difficult for the hon. member from Hamilton, East, I believe it is, to make any remarks without bringing in innuendo.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Or for Renfrew North.

Mr. Laughren: Hamilton West.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Hamilton West, I’m sorry. I am very disappointed he should have suggested in his remarks, as I took it anyway, that for some reason since I became minister of this ministry I would appear to have instructed the Highway Transport Board to take certain actions that they may not have taken before.

Mr. Lewis: I don’t think that’s true.

Mr. Reid: He didn’t say that at all.

Mr. Conway: You weren’t here.

Hon. Mr. Snow: At no time did I discuss this application with the chairman or any member of the Highway Transport Board nor do I discuss any other applications that are being heard before the board. I may discuss an application or a result after a decision is made.

[4:15]

I might say I had a visit between three and four weeks ago from the executive of the TTC and the Gray Coach Lines, and, I might say I refused, on behalf of them, to make any recommendations or suggestions to the chairman of the board until such time as a decision was made and I will continue to take that stand.

Mr. Sargent: Very briefly, the minister should resign. This is the biggest train robbery since Hydrogate -- the Moog and Davis hotel here.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I would caution the member not to use excessive language.

Mr. Sargent: You can keep on cautioning. I’m speaking from the chair as much as you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I’ll caution you, and I’ll even dismiss you if you persist in doing so.

Mr. Sargent: You just try it and see what happens. This is still a free country. We have enough people here protecting the government now. We have here --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the member take his seat?

Will you take your seat?

Mr. Sargent: I will think about it, yes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the member thinks he’s going to threaten the Chair, he’s got another thing coming, because I don’t threaten very easily.

Mr. Sargent: Don’t threaten me then.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I will caution you to abide by the rules of the House and not use excessive language, because if you persist in doing so you will be dismissed from the chamber for the rest of the sitting.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, will you define excessive language, please?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Excessive language is anything that imputes motives, anything that is apt to cause grave disorder in this House and I’m not going to permit it. I just want to warn you of that fact right now.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, anything I may say is in the records of this House, in the report of the select committee hearings on Hydro, and if it’s in that report I can use it tonight in this address to the House.

We have here the documents from these hearings -- a certificate before the board from their representative Mr. Goodman, the top adviser to the Premier. For 32 years he’s been steering and writing the scenario here at Queen’s Park. We have John Robarts --

Mr. Lewis: He has not done badly.

Mr. Sargent: -- and a former member of the cabinet, Mr. Clement, involved here. These things are factual.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I would ask the hon. member to say in what way Mr. Clement --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is no point of order. I have listened very carefully to the debate, there’s nothing out of order, so there is no point of order.

Hon. Mr. Snow: He’s misleading the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: You cannot accuse another member of misleading the House. You’ll have to withdraw that.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I withdraw it. He certainly wasn’t intentionally misleading the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: You cannot accuse another member of misleading the House, you just withdraw it.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Conway: At last. At long last.

Mr. Sargent: We have the report from the cabinet meeting yesterday, and this is a dodge of the cabinet, it’s a stall. They