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

June 13, 1978

31st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L085 - Tue 13 Jun 1978 / Mar 13 jun 1978

PROPERTY TAXATION

DEATH OF SCHOOLBOYS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

DIAGNOSTIC SCANNERS

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

COMMUNITY SERVICE ORDER PROJECTS

VEHICLE PURCHASING POLICY

NORTHUMBERLAND RESTRUCTURING

ORAL QUESTIONS

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

OHIP BENEFITS

SCHEDULE

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

SUNNYBROOK HOSPITAL

FINANCIAL PROTECTION FOR FARMERS

LIQUOR STRIKE

SMALL BUSINESS

HIGHWAY SERVICE CENTRES

PRESTOLITE COMPANY

HIGHWAY 101 CONTRACT

DOW CHEMICAL

LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVIEWS

POLYGRAPH TESTS

QUEBEC POLICY ON CONSTRUCTION HIRING

REPORT

STATUTORY EXPENSES

MOTION

STANDING GENERAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

YORK MUNICIPAL HYDRO-ELECTRIC SERVICE ACT, 1978

THIRD READING

MUSKOKA AND PARRY SOUND TELEPHONE COMPANY LIMITED ACQUISITION ACT (CONTINUED)

THIRD READING

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

COUNTY OF OXFORD AMENDMENT ACT

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES AMENDMENT ACT

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege and information for the members of the Legislature. Yesterday in question period I answered a question from the leader of the third party in which I indicated that equalization factors were not frozen in the province of Ontario.

Mr. Breaugh: And of course they are.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: I wish to correct that statement. They are frozen in the province of Ontario --

Mr. Breaugh: Absolutely.

Mr. Wildman: A small mistake.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: -- under

section 96(2) of the Assessment Act.

DEATH OF SCHOOLBOYS

Mr. Havrot: Mr. Speaker, might I ask leave of the House to rise on a point of privilege. I would ask all members to join with me in expressing our sorrow and condolences to the families of the 12 youths who drowned so tragically while canoeing last weekend at Lake Timiskaming on a school outing. The religious faith of these parents has probably never been so strongly tested as in the past two days.

I would ask the honourable members of this House to join me in assuring the parents of those brave boys from St. John’s School at Claremont, that they and their sons are in the thoughts or prayers of people across Ontario.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yesterday, the Prime Minister of Canada tabled a white paper on constitutional reform. I also had an opportunity yesterday to discuss the federal government’s proposal with the Hon. Hugh Faulkner, who had been asked by the Prime Minister to meet with me.

The paper that was tabled yesterday deals generally with an approach to constitutional reform. I was pleased to see, in this introductory paper, a recognition of a number of points which had been put forward in recent years by Ontario and other provinces -- I need only refer to its emphasis on the need to improve the practices of our federation through a clarification of existing responsibilities and elimination of duplication.

Because the details of the federal proposals will only be released later this month, it is too soon to comment in specifics on the federal action. Once the detailed proposals are made known, this government will give them intense study and will take a constructive and open approach into the intergovernmental discussions which will follow. I expect that this province, and myself, will take an active part at both the premiers’ conference in August and the proposed federal-provincial meeting in September when constitutional matters are dealt with.

This is in keeping with Ontario’s past approach to constitutional discussions when the provinces always work towards agreements that would meet the needs of Canadians in all parts of the country.

I do believe that action to implement proposals to change some of the basic elements of our federal system must only follow intensive public discussions and a high degree of consensus. The constitution requires broad acceptance if it is to have the legitimacy to make it effective.

DIAGNOSTIC SCANNERS

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable members are aware, our health care system is a system in transition. One of the key elements undergoing rapid change is new diagnostic technology, especially computerized axial tomography units, or CAT scanners, as they are called.

These units use a narrow beam of x-rays, radiation detectors, computer science and video display to provide a cross-sectional view of a selected portion of a patient’s body. A CAT scanner provides information clearly, quickly and without the discomfort associated with some other methods of diagnosis.

As well as being an extremely efficient diagnostic tool, CAT scanners are very costly. A single head-scan unit costs up to $400,000, while a whole-body scanner costs as much as $800,000. Annual operating costs can reach as high as $250,000.

In times of cost constraint it is imperative to control the proliferation of high-cost technology. I am therefore announcing a new policy covering the placement and funding of CAT scan units in Ontario.

The CAT scanner was invented only six years ago in Great Britain. The first unit in Ontario was installed at Toronto General Hospital the following year, 1973. It soon became obvious that, to ensure their equitable distribution throughout Ontario, the Ministry of Health would have to formulate a policy to regulate the placement and funding of CAT scanners. Therefore, in 1975, a ministry task force was asked to consider the problems posed by this new technology. The task force brought together experts from the Ministry of Health, the Ontario Medical Association, the Ontario Council of Administrators of Teaching Hospitals and the University Teaching Hospitals Association.

Early in 1976, the group published its report recommending the initial placement of CAT scanners in each of the five health science centres, with an eventual goal of one unit for each 500,000 population. The capital cost of each unit, the report said, should be the responsibility of the hospitals acquiring it. The report also recommended a review of the situation within the following year.

In October of last year I announced the approval of five additional CAT scanning units. Previously, scanners had been approved for Hamilton Civic Hospital, London Victoria Hospital, London University Hospital and the Ottawa General, as well as the unit at Toronto General that I have already mentioned.

The October approvals were for units in Kingston General Hospital and in Princess Margaret and St. Michael’s Hospitals in Toronto, as well as one in Thunder Bay which is now assigned to the McKellar General, plus a second unit for Hamilton, the hospital location to be determined by the district health council.

Since then, a ministry review of the CAT scanner issue, as recommended by the 1976 task force, has been carried out. It is from these recommendations that the following policy has been developed, supported by changes in regulations to the Public Hospitals Act and to the Health Insurance Act.

Briefly, the effect of regulation changes will be to assist my ministry in controlling the proliferation and unauthorized usage of CAT scanners. I will summarize the key changes as follows:

One, since CAT scanners are a regional resource, we are creating a new category of hospital -- group M hospitals, those that may charge and accept payment from other hospitals for the performance of CAT scans.

Two, another regulation change will prevent unauthorized hospitals and private clinics from receiving ministry funding for CAT scanners by prohibiting all hospitals from charging patients for CAT scans and permitting only group M institutions to charge other hospitals for scans performed for patients of those other hospitals.

Three, additional regulations permit OHIP payments to physicians for professional

interpretation of CAT scans only when such scans are carried out at a public hospital.

Furthermore, new regulations list specific hospitals approved to operate CAT scanners and to have the operating costs, including depreciation, funded by the ministry. These are Hamilton Civic, London Victoria, Ottawa General and Toronto General Hospitals, approved for head scanners; and Kingston General, McKellar General in Thunder Bay, Princess Margaret and St. Michael’s Hospitals in Toronto, approved for whole-body scanners.

Other group M hospitals have also had scanners approved, but because of financial constraints operating costs for them will only be paid at a later date as funds become available. They will, however, be permitted to charge other hospitals for scans done for their patients. These approved but presently unfunded hospitals are Toronto Sunnybrook, a hospital in Hamilton, one in Windsor and one in Sudbury for head scanners; and London’s University Hospital, Ottawa Civic, Toronto General, Toronto Western and the Hospital for Sick Children for whole-body scanners.

Because of ministry cost constraints, all hospitals will have to provide initial capital costs for a CAT scanner from their own resources. However, those approved for funding will receive, in addition to operating costs, a depreciation allowance permitting recovery of capital costs over a five-year period.

The professional fee will be paid for each scan permitted under OHIP and carried out in a public hospital. However, those institutions outside of the group M category will not be able to charge other hospitals for CAT scans. Their annual budget will not be adjusted to reflect CAT scan operating costs, nor will they be able to charge a patient for a CAT scan. Any CAT scan performed by a private hospital or private outpatient clinic will not be considered an OHIP-insured service. Such facilities would not receive any funding from the ministry for CAT scan work.

To summarize, among the hospitals I have mentioned are seven newly approved for CAT scanners, to be paid for with their own capital and operating funds. These will be located in Ottawa Civic, in Toronto Sunnybrook, Toronto Western and the Hospital for Sick Children. A whole-body scanner to complement its existing head scanner is approved for Toronto General. As I’ve said, my ministry will also approve CAT scanners for Sudbury and the Windsor area. I’m asking the district health councils to advise us as to which hospitals in these areas should receive scan units.

The existing and newly approved CAT scanner installations represent, I believe, an equitable and cost-conscious distribution of this technology in Ontario. The choices have been based on demonstrated regional need, using three criteria.

They are a population density of one unit per 500,000 population -- it is worth noting that the listing just outlined totals 11 units, representing approximately one per 500,000 population as recommended by the task force report; second, sufficient patient load and the existence of the appropriate professional staff of neurosurgeons, neurologists and neuro-radiologists; and third, geographical factors such as access to the unit by other hospitals and sharing of the unit on an equitable basis to provide access for all patients regardless of hospital affiliations.

While I have listed the hospitals designed to provide this valuable service, it should be emphasized that the service will be of a regional nature. All other hospitals in an area must have access to the program for those patients who would benefit. The hospitals selected must develop mutually agreeable policies to make CAT scan services readily available to all citizens.

As a guide to the future, all approved hospitals have agreed to a formal, ongoing evaluation of the use of the scanner by my ministry. This evaluation project will permit us to assess the degree to which the currently approved scanners have been used, as well as the financial and clinical efficiency of their operations. I expect it will take some 18 to 24 months before we get a clear indication of the patterns of CAT scanner usage. Only after this evaluation is completed can we consider additional CAT scanners for hospitals in such areas as northeast and northwest Metropolitan Toronto.

In recent months, I have frequently described our health system as being a system in transition. I have discussed the need to manage the changes taking place in the system. I believe the phenomenon of the CAT scanner is an excellent example of our response to the need to manage change while maintaining Ontario’s health care system as one of the finest in the world.

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Yesterday, the leader of the New Democratic Party asked questions of the Minister of Energy (Mr. Baetz) with respect to a letter which had been sent to me last Friday by Dr. Arthur Porter, chairman of the Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning. Since the royal commission reports to me, I would like to advise the House that I have asked Dr. Porter to clarify precisely what information has come to his attention and precisely why he is concerned. I and my staff will be discussing this matter with him in detail over the next few days.

I am pleased that Dr. Porter has made himself available to the media this morning to explain the contents of his letter to me. In so doing, he indicated that the Atomic Energy Control Board is reviewing current reactor safety principles and criteria with the objective of clarifying the existing situation. The commission, therefore, intends to inquire further into the conclusions of this review in order to supplement information already made available to it by the board. He added that safety standards in Ontario’s nuclear plants are second to none in the world.

In the meantime, I would like to remind members that the full responsibility for determining the safety standards of nuclear reactors rests with the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada. When I obtain more information, I will be pleased to report back to the House.

[2:15]

COMMUNITY SERVICE ORDER PROJECTS

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, June 8, I signed a contract for the funding of a community service order project to be administered by the Elizabeth Fry Society, Peel-Halton branch. This signing was significant for a number of reasons, which I would like to share with members of this Assembly.

This contract, plus the two with native organizations in London and Kenora which I announced on May 30, brings the number of community service order projects for funding by my ministry to nine.

By way of a progress report, I am pleased to report that as of April 30, 1978, a total of 451 community service orders had been issued by the judiciary, of which 213 were in six project areas and 238 in the remainder of the province.

Community support for the concept of community services has been excellent. We are indebted to the judiciary for their innovative use of community service orders and to the agencies who have worked to ensure the projects succeed. To these agencies, through our probation staff, has fallen the responsibility of searching out appropriate service activities and work to be assigned to offenders. Amongst these placements, social service tasks predominate. But physical work placements have also been used. Several offenders have been offered jobs who have continued on as volunteers as a result of their community work.

The number of hours to be worked on community service orders has ranged from between eight and 600, with the greatest number of orders falling in the 50- to 150-hour range. Most offenders carried out their assignments in the evenings or on weekends. Community service placements have included reading books on tape for the blind, helping the disabled to learn horseback riding, assisting on wards and recreational programs at psychiatric hospitals, cooking at weekends at a hostel and working as a receptionist in a senior citizens’ home.

On the basis of present information, it is estimated that approximately 1,500 persons will be placed on community service orders in the next year and similar numbers and perhaps many more will receive this type of disposition in future years. Not all of these persons would otherwise have received prison terms. However, it seems reasonable to assume that approximately half of them would normally have been sentenced to two months or less.

In other words, the community service orders as an alternative to incarceration will save the taxpayers the many millions of dollars that would have been required to build, staff and operate at least one new correctional facility. Incidentally, community service orders are already helping to relieve overcrowding in institutions.

Mr. Sargent: You should take some of those millions of dollars and build a decent jail in Owen Sound.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Perhaps more important than the saving is the impetus which has been given to the movement away from the institutionalization of petty offenders. As a result of various initiatives by my colleague the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), in co-operation with the judiciary, steps have been taken to increase the use of alternatives to incarceration. In my view the use of community service orders is one of the most important of these options and I am anxious to see their use greatly expanded.

A community service order provides a sentencing mechanism for distinguishing between lawbreaker and criminal. It provides a much-needed and appreciated help to the community as well as repaying the community for the expenses incurred as a result of wrongdoing by the offender. Community service also teaches the lawbreaker to accept responsibility for his deeds.

From my perspective as Minister of Correctional Services, it is highly desirable that wherever possible nonviolent offenders should be permitted to remain in the community rather than be sent to costly correctional institutions. There will always be a percentage of the offender population who must in the interests of public safety be housed in secure correctional facilities. These persons would include those on remand awaiting trial, sentence or transfer to institutions, as well as the relatively small number of persons convicted of violent offences who must receive treatment and training in a secure setting.

However, society would be better served if many petty offenders were diverted to community service rather than being sentenced to institutions.

Our goal should be to return prisons to performing the main function for which they were established: the protection of society from the violent and dangerous. A community service order is not a panacea but is one of a number of alternatives which can help us to achieve this goal and, although we have a long way to go in reducing the large number of male offenders being sent to correctional facilities, there is every reason to be optimistic about the possibility of dramatically changing the situation as it relates to female offenders.

In this context, the contract with the Elizabeth Fry Society to operate a community service project takes on increased significance. As members know, the Elizabeth Fry Society has an outstanding record of achievement for its work with female offenders who are returning to the community after a period of incarceration in prison. The project involving the Peel-Halton branch not only marks the entry of the society into providing services to male offenders, because both men and women qualify for such orders, but it also moves the society into working with offenders who have not been sentenced to institutions.

It is my confident hope that through the sentencing alternatives such as community service orders, and with the assistance and help of experienced organizations such as the Elizabeth Fry Society, we can move towards the goal of de-institutionalizing all but the most violent female offenders within the next two years.

Mr. Peterson: The only decent minister you’ve got, Bill. You should promote him.

Mr. McClellan: One decent minister over there.

Mr. Warner: The rest of you should resign.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Only when you do, David.

VEHICLE PURCHASING POLICY

Hon. Mr. Snow: I would like to inform the House that the government of Ontario has revised its purchasing policy on motor vehicles, a policy my ministry will be implementing this year.

Mr. S. Smith: What about smaller cars?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Cabinet has decided that beginning with the purchase of 1979 model vehicles this fall, all government passenger cars and light commercial vehicles will be purchased directly through local dealers by open tenders on a district basis. As I am sure the honourable members are aware, the government’s present practice is to purchase vehicles from the manufacturer and have them delivered through dealers designated by the manufacturer.

Mr. Laughren: About time.

Hon. Mr. Snow: This new policy will bring our vehicle purchasing practices more in line with the government’s overall policy of assisting small local businessmen whenever possible.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I might add that MTC will continue to be responsible for all specifications and the purchasing of all government motor vehicles.

Ms. Bryden: What about the gas?

Mr. Peterson: What are you backing off of today, Darcy?

NORTHUMBERLAND RESTRUCTURING

Hon. Mr. McKeough: On May 11 I introduced Bill 79,

An Act to Restructure the County of Northumberland. That legislation came about because of a request from the Northumberland county council.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order: I have received the statement now, Mr. Speaker, but I wonder whether the Treasurer could follow the practice now adopted by other members of the cabinet and ensure that statements are delivered in advance of and not after his statements to the House.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I had read all of two lines.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The rule says, “at the time of.”

Mr. Laughren: What a difference minority government makes.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: After two earlier votes favouring restructuring, the county council in Northumberland on June 12 voted against restructuring.

I have on several occasions indicated that we would abide by the wish of the county council on this matter and that the government of Ontario was not going to impose restructuring on the county. Bill 79 was based on local initiative from the county and depended upon the continued support of county council. Consequently, the government of Ontario will not be proceeding with the legislation.

Because developments in the Northumberland area will continue to put stress upon the fabric of local government in the county, the government of Ontario will be prepared to consider future municipal reform initiatives from the area. However, I want to stress that the initiative for reform must come from the municipalities themselves.

Mr. Peterson: You have been running backward so much lately that your heels are backward.

ORAL QUESTIONS

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Mr. S. Smith: A question of the Minister of Energy: It pertains to the question asked by the leader of the third party yesterday, and also Dr. Porter’s statement on the radio this morning.

What is the information that the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada came in possession of that triggered this particular reassessment of the safety factors regarding the nuclear reactors in Ontario? Can the minister give us that information; and if he can’t, can he tell us basically what its nature is? Is it in any way related to the exchange of correspondence for which we put in a request in December 1976, the so-called background notes to do with the Bruce and Pickering safety report?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: As my colleague has already indicated, he is in the process of really finding out from Dr. Porter just exactly what he did mean by his statement. Until we have that kind of information, I suppose, we have to go on a great deal of conjecture. I frankly don’t know.

Mr. McClellan: This is absurd.

Mr. Roy: You are only the Minister of Energy, you are not expected to know.

Mr. Warner: You only know what the chairman of Hydro told you?

Mr. Bolan: You won’t last too long there.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I do know that on February 22, the Atomic Energy Control Board -- which as has been indicated is responsible for setting these standards of safety and for daily supervision of them; it’s not the responsibility of Ontario Hydro, these are standards set by AECB. As I say we have been informed in the last few days that AECB did present a very detailed submission to the Porter commission on reactor criteria studies on February 22 and 23. This appears as exhibit 318 and is now a public document; we do know that.

I would find it difficult to answer in detail the questions of the Leader of the Opposition until we have a more precise statement from Dr. Porter as to what triggered him to delay the submission of the report to the Legislature. We’re trying to find out what it was.

Mr. Deans: What do you mean by you are trying to find out?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: We have established that the Atomic Energy Control Board did make a submission and did present evidence. As my colleague has indicated, we have heard this morning from Dr. Porter himself, confirming something we knew all along, that Pickering and Bruce are the safest reactors in the world.

Mr. Sargent: Why don’t you make a phone call and find out?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: To get back to the question, I don’t really know what triggered him. Certainly there was no deliberate attempt on the part of Hydro or anybody else to withhold information.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, I didn’t ask what triggered Dr. Porter’s objection, as we know what triggered his objection. He says clearly he’s concerned that the Atomic Energy Control Board did not disclose to us the fact that it was carrying out a reassessment of the safety. That’s what he’s upset about.

Could the minister tell us whether such a reassessment is under way; and if so, what triggered that reassessment? If he doesn’t know that, does he mean to say he has not bothered to ask Hydro this in the last couple of days, given that Hydro is a party to the reassessment?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: As I indicated, we have established the fact, which was not at all apparent in Dr. Porter’s statement of yesterday, that the Atomic Energy Control Board did, on February 22, submit a brief to the Porter commission, dealing with the very subject he is now raising questions about. Until we hear from Dr. Porter in more detail, we really don’t know what more information he wants.

Mr. Deans: The minister is getting progressively worse.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Hydro also appeared on the panel in March and was prepared to speak to this presentation of AECB of February 22, but no questions were raised. Therefore, we are at a loss to know what more information Dr. Porter really needs or what he wants.

Mr. S. Smith: Did the minister ask Hydro if there is going to be a reassessment?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: There is an ongoing assessment. That was fully documented in the brief submitted by AECB on February 22 to Dr. Porter’s commission. For that reason, we are at a loss to know what more the gentleman wants at this time.

Mr. Cassidy: Can the minister say what discussions have been taking place between Ontario Hydro and AECB over nuclear reactor safety criteria; whether there have been new discussions initiated as a result of the February 22 document or for some other reason within the last three or four months; and what has been the result of those particular discussions, particularly as regards the safety of existing power stations and as regards the possibility of dual failure accidents, about which the AECB has obviously got to be concerned?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: In conversations with the chairman of the board of Ontario Hydro in the last 24 hours, I have had reconfirmed and reiterated the fact that the whole question of safety of the reactors is not a one-time thing. It’s not a sporadic thing, it’s an ongoing thing.

The supervisors of the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada are daily supervising the generating plants to make absolutely certain the standards established and approved by AECB are maintained. It’s an ongoing thing --

[2:30]

Ms. Gigantes: That’s right, it’s an ongoing problem.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: -- and even the assessment of the criteria is an ongoing thing; it isn’t a one-time shot at all.

Mr. Foulds: Are those standards adequate?

Mr. S. Smith: Could I, by way of supplementary, be sure I understand the minister correctly, because this is an important point.

Is the minister saying that, as far as he knows or has been able to find out from Hydro, the only assessment going on is a kind of continuing assessment to which reference was made on February 22 and an exhibit of which was filed with the Porter commission; therefore the minister himself is at some loss to know why Dr. Porter is so surprised, since this is an ongoing assessment that has already been referred to? Is that basically what the minister has heard from Hydro?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: That is not basically what I have heard from Hydro; that’s basically what I heard from the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada. At a news conference in Ottawa this morning at 11:30, AECB said essentially the same thing. They frankly don’t know why Dr. Porter suddenly feels he needs more information, because he has been getting all the information. He got it February 22. AECB is there to give him the details. Any more details he wants he can have.

Mr. Sargent: So he is a bad guy now.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: So we really don’t know; probably it will be clarified when he responds to the letter of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Brunelle).

Mr. Cassidy: Is the government now prepared to table the Bruce safety reactor notes which were requested by my predecessor in this House back in December of 1976, which clearly have a vital bearing on the questions of safety; not just to the Bruce plant but also at all comparable nuclear installations in the province, and which the government refused to table at that particular time?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I am assuming that if it has to do with safety we would be ready to table any piece of information that will confirm to this House, and the public at large, what we already know: that Pickering and Bruce are, by world standards, the safest reactors in the world.

OHIP BENEFITS

SCHEDULE

Mr. S. Smith: A question of the Minister of Health: Can the minister tell the House whether there has been a policy adopted whereby OHIP will no longer pay for certain experimental and as yet unproven forms of treatment? Has there been a change made in the OHIP

schedule of benefits, which is now different from the OMA schedule, which has removed from OHIP payments for certain experimental forms of treatment? Is this a policy?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: In the OHIP

schedule of benefits which has recently been published -- and the interim

schedule was negotiated with OMA -- there have been several changes in terms of adding, for instance the intermediate assessment, and taking a few things out. I don’t have the list with me. If the member would like an indication of the changes, I will be glad to get that for him. I don’t recall any particular one off hand.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, what I really want from the minister is some indication as to whether there has been a policy of removing experimental and as yet unproven methods from the OHIP benefits schedule? If so, could he list what benefits and what treatments have been removed from the previous existing schedule?

While he is looking at that, could the minister explain to the House why an ultraviolet treatment, photobiology sometimes known as PUVA treatment, has been removed from the OHIP schedule, since I know of at least one instance where the treatment was of very considerable benefit in a most serious case?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Any additions or deletions to the

schedule are always based on the medical efficacy of the individual item and negotiations with medical associations. For instance, the member may recall that in 1977 we added reconstructive surgery for radical mastectomies. That was based on discussions with the college and with the medical association to determine that it was, in fact, something that should be an insured benefit. All parties having agreed to that, it was added. The same would be true of any other things being removed.

In our negotiations with the medical association, if we were agreed that something should not be a benefit because it is not proven or it’s not effective, the appropriate steps are taken there. So I will get the member the list. I believe Mr. Armstrong from the Liberal research office phoned OHIP this morning and was speaking with the staff there about this anyway, and that is already in the works.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the Premier arising out of his statement on the federal government proposals on constitutional change.

Can the Premier say, in the light of his statement, that he believes that constitution requires broad acceptance if it is to have a legitimacy to make it effective, whether that means Ontario is accepting or not accepting the 1980 deadline which the federal Prime Minister appears to be seeking to impose on the provinces and the country at large?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, in fairness to the Prime Minister and to everybody. I think it is too early to make that sort of judgement. Quite frankly, I can understand the Prime Minister’s desire to establish certain tentative timetables. Whether they will be met, whether they should be met, I think is something that discussions over the next few months will determine. Certainly I am not accepting a particular timetable. I think the consensus that is necessary may require a longer period of time, or it may not; I can’t make that sort of judgement.

But I do say to the honourable member that we intend to approach these discussions in a constructive way. It really is early to comment until we see some of the legislation because, while the white paper sort of sets a tone for what may emerge, I think it is the specifics that really should be discussed. However, I am not accepting nor rejecting the timetable that has been suggested.

I would just say to the honourable member, and this may sound strange coming from me, that I can understand why he would suggest a timetable, because in fairness we have been discussing this, to my knowledge, since at least 1971 -- some will argue since 1968 -- and I am one of those who believes that there should be some progress made.

Mr. Sargent: Something like your tax reform, Bill?

Mr. Cassidy: Can the Premier say whether. when the Honourable Hugh Faulkner was here yesterday, there have been assurances from the federal government that this province and other provinces will be consulted in advance of the legislation which the federal government apparently intends to present to Parliament by the end of June? Can he say whether there has been an assurance of that kind of consultation?

As a second part of the question, does the Premier consider that the proposals that the federal government is now recycling from the early 1970s are appropriate, particularly in view of the fact that they do not appear to make reference to the need to co-ordinate economic action on behalf of all Canadians within the constitution?

Mr. Peterson: Who is writing your speeches for God’s sake? Ed Broadbent?

Hon. Mr. Davis: As I am sure the honourable member would agree if he thought about it carefully --

Mr. Makarchuk: It’s better than Eugene Whelan.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That was unfair to say about the Minister of Agriculture for Canada.

Mr. Roy: He is not arguing with you, Bill.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Great Canadian.

Hon. Mr. Davis: In fairness, I think one can understand the principle of the bill being introduced and given first reading before being discussed in public. While both Mr. Faulkner and Mr. Thorson, who was also here, shared some aspects in general terms, I think it is reasonable to assume that the bill should be introduced.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary, Mr.

Speaker: I recognize the fact that it is difficult to give commitments when we are lacking specifics, as we are in this white paper, but the white paper states on page 24: “Provisions could be made for provincial governments to join in supporting aims and the charter at once or when they saw fit.” In view of the importance of the proposals, in view of the work the Premier has done in that field -- he has had a blue document out, which I have had occasion to read -- and in view of the very important principles, will the Premier undertake that we shall have an opportunity in this House to have a full debate so that all members of the Legislature can participate and give the government our views and have a very positive approach to these proposals?

In terms of what approach we take provincially, as to whether or not we accept, in terms of provincial reaction, some aspects of the charter, the statement of rights or principles -- whatever way it is phrased -- not only will there be ample opportunity for discussion, but I would doubt that this would be done without, probably, ultimately a specific resolution to the House. At the time of the Victoria charter, we contemplated that if it had proceeded not only would it have required, but I was anxious to have, some resolution of the House dealing with our participation in it. I would certainly think there will be ample opportunity.

The discussions in August among the Premiers will, hopefully, be of a constructive nature once again and will give us some positions to put to the first minister and his colleagues in the September conference, assuming that there will be one. I would think that after that there will still be a rather prolonged discussion publicly and between governments, and there will be ample opportunity here for us to discuss not only the issues raised by the honourable member but what will then have emerged, many other issues on which he will want to express a point of view -- a lot of us will. There will be no problem doing that in the fall session.

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary; Would the Premier make available forthwith, as he promised a few days ago, the statements that were released from the Kingston conference of Joe Clark and provincial Conservative Premiers, and also the document provided by Mr. Clark on behalf of provincial Conservative Premiers to, I believe, Claude Ryan as well as Premier Levesque, so that we might be able to ascertain what relevance those documents have to the forthcoming federal legislation?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I apologize to the honourable member. I brought that historic Kingston communique with me -- I don’t know if it was yesterday or Friday --

Mr. T. P. Reid: The Brampton charter?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Bramalea. Bramalea.

Mr. Breithaupt: You could have a two for one sale.

Mr. MacDonald: What about the other one presented by Joe Clark to Premier Levesque on behalf of the provincial PC Premiers?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have found no formal documentation. I doubt very much whether Mr. Clark had anything other than the material which has either been released by the party federally --

Mr. MacDonald: He said he had.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- or the Kingston communique. I certainly have the Kingston communique. As I said, I had it here either Friday or yesterday, and I’ll be delighted to send it to the honourable member.

Mr. MacDonald: No, no, no; Joe Clark said he had further information.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I have a feeling that will go the way of the dodo bird. I’d like to ask the Premier if, in his wisdom and knowledge of these affairs, he thinks that the constitution of Canada, such as it is, can be changed unilaterally by the federal government without specifics in the first phase of the fiscal responsibilities between the federal and provincial governments being outlined specifically and acutely?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m treading a very difficult area here. I think that question might more properly be directed to the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), who is an expert in terms of constitutional law.

Mr. Roy: Not quite; the Supreme Court of Canada didn’t think so.

[2:45]

Hon. Mr. Davis: However, being a non-expert in the field of constitutional law, I will venture an opinion. That opinion is that probably there could be some constitutional changes, as they relate to federal institutions, without the consent of the provinces or their involvement. I think this would be highly regrettable. I don’t think that’s the way the Prime Minister would wish to move on it. Certainly, I think it would be an unwise course to follow, but technically or legally I think the Parliament of Canada can make certain constitutional changes on its own initiative.

So my answer to that question would be -- and I’m open to correction by constitutional experts -- I think that is a possibility.

Mr. T. P. Reid: So is the Attorney General.

Mr. Roy: I think the Premier is on the right track; accept our opinion.

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Mr. Cassidy: I want to return to the Minister of Energy to talk about the safety-danger possibilities in nuclear reactors which have been raised by the chairman of the Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning.

Has the Minister of Energy been in direct contact with Dr. Porter over the serious concerns which he raised in his letter to the government of yesterday? Has the Minister of Energy consulted the Bruce reactor safety notes which raised specific questions related to a dual failure accident? Can he report on those two questions?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I have not been in touch with Dr. Porter since yesterday because, as I indicated earlier, we are still awaiting clarification from him as to his precise point of concern about why he is delaying the presentation of the report.

I am I having discussions with Hydro on the safety features but, as I also indicated earlier, the standards of safety which are applied to all generating stations in Ontario are set and supervised by the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada. Hydro really doesn’t set those standards. There is a daily supervision going on by AECB supervisory personnel. Certainly if there are questions of safety, I am convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt that this daily kind of supervision will deal with these questions.

More than that, it’s really very difficult to know what to say at this particular point in time anyway.

Ms. Gigantes: For the minister it is.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that Ontario Hydro operates the nuclear power reactors and will clearly be responsible, as will the government with the AECB, should there be any kind of a failure that affects safety, is the minister satisfied with the standards that have been laid down by the AECB; and in particular is he concerned about the fact that the safety shutdown system under Ontario’s present nuclear plant designs are in fact dependent on each other and are not, apparently, independent? Is this the matter of particular concern to the government; and if so what is it doing about it?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: As I’m sure the leader of the third party recognizes, the safety devices for the generators are a highly technical, highly complex matter. I really think it would be inappropriate for us to second guess, even, those who we think are the best scientists and safety experts in Canada who daily look into this question.

If we have been told, as we have been consistently by the Atomic Energy Control Board, that the standards of safety are adequate, even though they are constantly under review -- because, after all, the reactors have only been active for a short number of years so one can assume this has to be reviewed considerably -- I would think that we here, who are not scientists, simply cannot second guess, as it were, the best brains, the best experts in the country.

Ms. Gigantes: Why doesn’t the minister answer the question?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I don’t know how much further the member expects us to go at this particular point.

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister is he is aware that the concerns about the independence of the shutdown systems in the Candu reactor has been raised by the AECB in correspondence with Hydro since well into 1976? Is he not aware also that the AECB is likely to be bringing in new and more stringent regulations in this area? Doesn’t he think he should know about this?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I certainly do know about it. I am keeping myself fully informed on that subject --

Mr. Warner: Why don’t you? You don’t.

Ms. Gigantes: You are sloppy.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: -- but I am not trying to second guess the experts at AECB.

Mr. Warner: Guessing, that’s all you do.

Mr. Cassidy: Has the minister had the experts at AECB and at Hydro explain to him on behalf of the government the risks that may be entailed in the present kind of reactor design where the two safety shutdown systems are not independent? Has he had them explain it in terms which are understandable to him at the political level; and is he therefore satisfied or not satisfied with the safety features? If he does not know, how can he continue to be the minister responsible at the political level for ensuring that Ontario Hydro is doing an adequate job?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: It is not Ontario Hydro, it is the Atomic Energy Control Board that sets the standards and enforces the standards. Let’s just keep that one in mind.

Ms. Gigantes: Oh come on; Hydro sets them.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: To the specific question -- have I ever had Hydro or the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada try to explain to me in layman’s terms what the safety features are -- the answer is yes. Furthermore, in light of the questions in the House today, I am going to be asking AECB to set out the safety features in layman’s language that all of us in this House can understand. I will be glad to table them in this House; and then I think members will begin to realize that there are about eight or nine safety barriers.

Ms. Gigantes: Table the safety notes.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I think it would be very helpful if we in this House could have this kind of presentation, and I will be happy to ask AECB and Ontario Hydro jointly to give us this information.

Mr. Foulds: Will you table the Bruce safety notes?

SUNNYBROOK HOSPITAL

Mr. G. Taylor: The question is to the Minister of Health. I have received numerous letters and correspondence and telephone calls on the reports of the meals, particularly breakfast, being served to the patients, some of whom are veterans, at the Sunnybrook Hospital. Could the minister comment on that please, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Martel: That was three weeks ago.

Mr. Cassidy: The member for Sudbury (Mr. Germa) raised that already.

Mr. Samis: Check Hansard.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I can confirm that following my request for a review of the matter the board of Sunnybrook Hospital has decided not to carry out that action.

FINANCIAL PROTECTION FOR FARMERS

Mr. Riddell: A question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food: Having met with the Ontario Cattlemen’s Association last week and discussing with them their concerns, does the minister intend to amend the Farm Products Payment Act to encompass the four basic concepts as outlined by them? The concepts are: the licensing of livestock dealers and dealer agencies, creation of an insurance fund, prompt payment provisions and the keeping of records.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that question. Yes, I did meet with the Ontario Cattlemen’s Association last week and they did point out to me that the legislation we passed last year upon their request met all the requirements but one which they asked for. They thought they could operate under that bill and work out for us the necessary financial protection. It would involve the payment, I believe, of $25,000 seed money from the province.

We now find out it will not work out quite as well as they had hoped. They have been working on it for almost a year to sort it out and I am quite prepared to look at amendments to the act to make it easy for them to sort it out. Of course we won’t get it in this session.

Mr. Riddell: A supplementary: Being it is allegedly reported that another packing company is encountering financial difficulties, what protection does the beef producer have under the existing act? In other words, have any of the regulations been put into effect as the bill was amended -- I believe it was last year?

Hon. W. Newman: When the bill was passed it was set up on the basis that each commodity board or group would set up its own fund for financial protection. We would put in some seed money when they worked out the details. At this time the Ontario Cattlemen’s Association has not worked out a program. That is why they are asking for a change in legislation.

Regarding the other part of the question about a packing plant that has a problem: we have checked into stories of that, it may be true. We have been unable to find anybody, except one person who was a little hit tardy in paying here about two weeks ago. I understand they had invested their money elsewhere but their financial status is good, if that’s the one the member is talking about. I am not sure that’s the one he is talking about but I know of no others.

LIQUOR STRIKE

Mr. Cooke: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I would like to ask the minister if he’s aware of the action taken in British Columbia to remove Hiram Walker products from liquor control stores in that province in an effort to take a more neutral role in the current strike that has been going on since the beginning of March? I am wondering if the minister will take the same action in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That is not neutral. That is taking sides.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, we will remain neutral.

Mr. MacDonald: Neutral against whom? That is like the Irish.

Mr. Cooke: Supplementary: How can the minister say that the government is acting in a neutral role when it is currently providing a market for and selling Hiram Walker products in its stores? How can they possibly say that is a neutral role?

Mr. Nixon: The NDP should boycott all those products.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: So long as Hiram Walker supplies products to the board, obviously, in order to remain neutral we will sell those products. Obviously, if they are unable to provide them to the stores, then to remain equally neutral there is nothing else we can do. We won’t be selling products if they are not supplied to us. What else might we do?

Mr. Bounsall: Supplementary: Seeing that it’s very clear that the minister does not agree with the decision of the British Columbia Labour Relations Board --

Mr. T. P. Reid: A rose by any other name.

Mr. Bounsall: -- however, in any event, because he may be trying to make a mechanistic argument rather than a rational one, would the minister consult with his colleague, the Minister of Labour, regarding what changes would need to be made to the Labour Relations Act in Ontario and urge her to introduce those amendments so that the question that was placed before the British Columbia Labour Relations Board can be placed before the Ontario Labour Relations Board so that we can have the benefit of their considered judgement as they got in BC?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: To quote the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McCague), no.

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr. Yakabuski: I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Tourism. In view of the fact that I, like many members of this Legislature, I am sure --

Mr. S. Smith: It’s a set-up today.

Mr. Yakabuski: -- get asked quite often by small business, especially in the last week since the retail merchants held their annual meeting at one of the Holiday Inns in this city, whom can they go to and who in the cabinet speaks for small business in this province?

Interjections.

Mr. Breaugh: Can we get it down in Hansard?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The minister deserves equal time.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I speak for small business in cabinet.

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, who of the Conservative Party is speaking for small retail businesses in the resources development committee when the member for Renfrew South (Mr. Yakabuski) is always supporting the supermarkets and not the small businessman?

Interjections.

Mr. Yakabuski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege.

[3:00]

Mr. Speaker: Point of privilege, the member for Renfrew South.

Mr. Yakabuski: Mr. Speaker, my point of privilege is this: All during the hearings looking into the food industry, the farm products marketing boards, et cetera, in committee, I have acted in a very unbiased and fair manner, looking at all sides of the industry. I wouldn’t want to be like the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) who was shot to pieces on his Mallen report.

HIGHWAY SERVICE CENTRES

Mr. Ruston: I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Could the minister tell the House whether the rumours circulating in the oil industry and other areas concerning the possibility of closing the first two service centres west of Toronto on Highway 401 are based on fact? Is the minister contemplating closing those two stations when the present contracts run out?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Not to my knowledge.

Mr. Ruston: Is the minister then contemplating new contracts where gasoline would be separate from the other parts of the establishment? Is he contemplating removing gasoline so that it would no longer be part of the total contract?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I will have to check to see when those particular leases do come up for renewal. I think it is a number of years away. I have not, to my knowledge, as yet seen any proposals for the renewal or for any changes in those contracts. But I would be glad to look into it.

Mr. Bounsall: When the minister is looking into those contracts, will he try to ensure that when the contracts are signed the price of gasoline is less than the 15 to 18 cents more than is charged in the surrounding areas, since those service stations constitute a ripoff of tourists coming into this province?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I am sure the honourable member knows there is no price control system for gasoline in this province.

Mr. McClellan: Yes, we’ve noticed.

Mr. Bounsall: Put it in the contract. It’s a ripoff.

Hon. Mr. Snow: As a matter of fact, the legal advice I have from my constitutional expert on my right --

Mr. Nixon: You would be better to pick the one on your left.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The one behind you.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I am sure the honourable colleague on my left could give me very capable advice, too.

Hon. F. S. Miller: You’ve never asked me.

Hon. Mr. Snow: In fact, I ask him many times for advice.

We don’t have the authority, in fact I have been advised by the Attorney General’s ministry that we would be in trouble with the combines investigation people if we attempted to control or set the price of gasoline at the service centres.

Mr. Bradley: Highway robbery.

Hon. Mr. Snow: As you are well aware, a year and a half ago we adjusted our leases on the service centres so that the lease payments were not payable on the extraordinary increases in gasoline prices brought about by the federal sales tax.

Mr. Mancini: In view of the fact that in 1976, I believe, the annual report of the Canadian Automobile Association not only criticized the price of gasoline but also the food service industry which is along the 401 strip, could the minister assure the House that when these contracts come up for renewal he will not only look at the price of gasoline but the quality of service in the food industry along Highway 401, which our tourists are very interested in?

Mr. Sargent: Just like you do on the Dineley contract here.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I really am at somewhat of a loss to know how to answer that question, but I will take it into consideration.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary: For those of us who travel these highways and byways regularly, believe me, what the minister allows to transpire on Highway 401 in terms of gas prices, quality of food, and service is a disgrace to this province, as my colleague has said. Would the minister undertake to look into both these matters, including the leasing problem, and report back to this House?

When one finds that some 80 or 90 per cent of the tourists coming to this province do so in vehicles, this is offending the tourist industry in this province. Will the minister get together with the Minister of Industry and Tourism, try to work something out, and report to this House on the clean-up proposal?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t know that we have any service centres on the byways of the province. The service centres that we have --

Mr. McClellan: Answer the question.

Mr. Roy: The problem is you don’t know the problem.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I’m not so sure they’re a quarter as bad as the member says they are.

Mr. McClellan: Say yes and sit down.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I’m not so sure they’re one quarter as bad as the honourable member says. Those people who like to condemn every private businessman in this province who is trying to make a living, I just don’t go for.

Interjections.

PRESTOLITE COMPANY

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Tourism.

Could the minister indicate what action he’s taking in response to the concerns raised by the union concerned over the future of Prestolite in Sarnia and other parts of the province especially in relation to the unfunded liability of the pension plan?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I’m sorry. I missed the last part. The unfunded liability of the pension plan?

Mr. Wildman: Of the pension plan.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I have been contacted by the mayor of Sarnia as a result of the Prestolite plant proposed shutdown or layoff. I guess it’s actually shutting it down. And there has been a meeting with the UAW representative.

At the time I spoke to the mayor, I indicated we would be sending one of our officials into the area to discuss what was going on with the company. I have not looked into the question of the unfunded pension plan, but we have been trying to work with the company to resolve the problem and, hopefully, keep the plant operating, if we can.

The other part of your question is something I’m afraid I have not looked into.

Mr. S. Smith: Would the minister undertake to present to this House, at some point, a bill or a policy which would make it mandatory for every firm in the province of Ontario to make public, both to the workers and to potential investors, the extent of any unfunded liability that exists in their pension funds?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I would respond to that by indicating to the Leader of the Opposition that perhaps that sort of bill may be desirable but I believe it should come from the minister responsible for pension funds, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Mr. S. Smith: May I redirect that question? Forced disclosure of unfunded liability in all private pension funds?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I’ll review the current regulations and their sufficiency and I will report to the House. Then we can chat about it further.

Mr. Mackenzie: Could the minister tell me, did I hear correctly, that he has had a meeting with the union involved in the Prestolite situation?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I was not in attendance at the meeting but members of the union met with the Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson) and the Premier (Mr. Davis) and discussed that among other problems. There was the UAW, and other unions -- the United Electrical Workers -- were represented at that meeting. Prestolite was one of those that was talked about.

Mr. Mackenzie: Within the last week?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, within the last week.

I’m sorry they didn’t report back to you.

HIGHWAY 101 CONTRACT

Mr. Pope: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications.

Is the minister aware of the concern of the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793, over the awarding of a contract on Highway 101 to Lamothe Construction, in view of the fact that this company does not, in the normal course of events, hire local labour for their contracts? Will the minister consider a policy change requiring in tender advertisements a requirement of the use of local labour for these contracts, and will the minister investigate whether or not a difference in sales tax between the province of Quebec and the province of Ontario with respect to asphalt may be responsible for the difference in bids?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, it is not the practice of the ministry or of the government when advertising for tenders for construction projects to qualify the residency of the contractor. In this particular instance, I believe the contract called for the resurfacing of a

section of highway in northeastern Ontario. The low bidder for that contract was a firm which, although it does have an office or is registered in the province of Ontario, really is a resident company of the province of Quebec.

We don’t too often have companies from other provinces carrying out work for the ministry, but periodically they do. I recall we had one instance last year in northwestern Ontario where a western Canadian contractor who had qualified and met all the requirements of the ministry was the low bidder and was awarded the contract, as was this particular company.

As for the particular contract, I am certainly aware of the interest of all of us in having as many jobs as possible for Ontario workers, but this is a resurfacing contract which does not involve a large number of employees. As usual, there is a crew for the actual pavers and they usually travel with the operation as it requires men who are used to working together.

I will inquire as to the other aspects of the contract, but I am not so sure that the sales tax on the asphalt would make any difference. As I recall, the province of Quebec has a higher sales tax than we have; so I think it would be detrimental rather than beneficial. But I will look into that and get the member an answer.

DOW CHEMICAL

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Attorney General about the much-ballyhooed, $35-million suit against Dow, out of which the Premier has had about seven years of mileage --

Hon. Mr. Davis: I haven’t talked about it in years.

Mr. Sargent: I have a two-part question to the Attorney General. What was the total legal cost for seven years of litigation? In view of the fact that the Attorney General says Mr. Robinette’s bill was $15,000, at the going rate of $1,000 a day, that is 15 days in seven years.

Secondly, in view of the fact that today’s Wall Street Journal reveals that the state of Ohio has appealed its case against Dow, why should the province of Ontario accept dismissal and let polluters to go scot-free here when Ohio won’t?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: First of all, Mr. Speaker, as I think all the members of the House fully appreciate, we do not allow polluters in this province to go scot-free.

Mr. Warner: When did that start?

Mr. Kerrio: Another turn of the wheel and we’d be paying them.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Secondly, so far as the legal disbursements are concerned, I can’t give the member a breakdown of the legal disbursements at this time; I have that information. The total of disbursements made by the government, both with respect to legal disbursements and consultants who were retained, was approximately $125,000.

Mr. Peterson: Is that the legal fees, or disbursements, or both?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Legal fees.

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary: Do I understand that for seven years’ litigation the fee was $125,000? And to whom was it paid?

Ms. Gigantes: How many hours were involved?

Mr. Grande: He didn’t answer the second part of the original question, about Ohio.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I will obtain a breakdown. There were various lawyers involved. Mr. Justice Dubin of the Court of Appeal was the counsel who had been retained prior to Mr. Robinette; when he was appointed to the Ontario Court of Appeal, Mr. Robinette was retained. I can obtain a breakdown for the honourable member.

Mr. Martel: That’s high-priced help.

[3:15]

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary: In view of the fact that the total bill paid to the fishermen was $250,000 and the lawyers got $125,000 -- that’s half what the fishermen got after seven years.

Mr. Warner: Supplementary: I’m wondering if the Attorney General is aware of the reasons for which the state of Ohio would proceed with an appeal, but in the same circumstance the province of Ontario chooses not to do so? Could he reconcile the difference in approach between this province and the state of Ohio in the case against Dow?

Mr. di Santo: Certainly not.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The circumstances are not the same.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVIEWS

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Treasurer. Since in his statement today he showed his great respect for local autonomy in municipal affairs in Northumberland, could I ask why then last Friday he refused a request from the council of the region of Durham to conduct a review of their regional government?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I don’t think I did.

Hon. W. Newman: Read the letter over and find out what’s in the letter before you make statements.

Mr. Breaugh: His parliamentary assistant delivered by hand a letter to the chairman of the regional council on Friday refusing their requests for a review of the government.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Irrespective of the specifics of last Friday or last week, we are not anxious to undertake any more reviews until we see some daylight from the four reviews which presently have been completed.

Mr. Breaugh: Supplementary: Could the Treasurer then give to us the criteria he uses for conducting them? Is it simply that he’s a little snowed under with reviews of regional government now or what?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I don’t know that I would have put it as eloquently as the honourable member, but he’s put it very well.

POLYGRAPH TESTS

Mr. B. Newman: I have a question of the Attorney General. Has his ministry completed its study concerning the use of the polygraph and what policy has he concerning its use?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: This is a matter that that is considered as properly within the purview of the Minister of Labour. I think any question in relation to that might properly be directed to the Minister of Labour.

Mr. B. Newman: Supplementary: I am not using this in the context of someone attempting to obtain employment and the polygraph or the voice stress analyser being used. The Attorney General certainly must have a policy as far as his own ministry is concerned allowing the use of the polygraph or disallowing its use.

Mr. Stong: Admissibility in the courts.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I really don’t understand the question with respect to allowing it. The major problem with respect to polygraphs and the major abuse, in my view, is in relation to employer-employee relationships.

This evidence is not admissible in the courts of this province. The polygraph is regarded as a useful investigative tool, if it’s operated properly. Some police forces do use it, quite properly, as an investigative tool only. The evidence is not admissible in the courts.

As I have indicated before, I am of the view that employees should not be forced, either directly or indirectly, to undergo this type of examination or take these tests.

I don’t know what else I could add because I don’t totally understand the member’s question.

Mr. B. Newman: Supplementary: It was two years ago that I asked the Attorney General this question in the House and at that time he told me he would have a reply. Surely it didn’t take him two years to tell me what he’s telling me now?

Mrs. Campbell: He doesn’t understand the question.

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary: Since his colleague, the Minister of Labour, has expressed her personal view that the use of lie detectors is not an acceptable procedure in labour-management relations, is the government considering banning their use?

Mr. Laughren: Yes, put up or shut up.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think this is a question, as I’ve already said, that should be directed to the Minister of Labour.

Mr. Martel: To the Premier.

Mr. MacDonald: May I redirect it to the Minister of Labour then?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I am sorry, I did not hear the question.

Mr. MacDonald: The Attorney General has redirected the question to the Minister of Labour. Since she expressed some concern about the use of lie detector machinery in labour-management relations a year or two ago, has the minister considered bringing in a law to forbid their use?

Hon. B. Stephenson: We are still examining the problem and the study which has been initiated has not, as yet, been completed.

Mr. McClellan: Maybe The Wyatt Company could look after it.

Mr. Laughren: Ask Wyatt.

Hon. B. Stephenson: There are as well two or three instances which have been brought before the human rights commission which are being investigated as well. When we have had a look at all of those, then we will consider it.

Mr. Martel: Give it to The Wyatt Company.

Mr. B. Newman: Will the minister look into the voice stress analyser also as a tool in employment practices?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes.

Mr. Sargent: Should get one to use in the House here.

QUEBEC POLICY ON CONSTRUCTION HIRING

Mr. Samis: A question on the meeting of the Minister of Labour on Saturday with Pierre Marc Johnson: Could the minister report to the House (

a) on what was accomplished; (

b) where things stand now; (

c) what lies ahead; and, (

d) what issues remain outstanding?

Hon. B. Stephenson: It was a congenial meeting; it was held in Montreal. All of the aspects of the issue were examined and none to my knowledge were resolved totally.

Mr. Samis: Supplementary: Are there further meetings scheduled before the July 1 deadline? Secondly, what is the stated intention of negotiations from Ontario’s viewpoint?

Hon. B. Stephenson: If I could make a respectful suggestion to the honourable member, I wonder if he would enunciate a little more clearly. I am unable to hear him.

Mr. Samis: Clearly, very slowly and articulately, could the minister tell us --

Mr. T. P. Reid: What was that?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We will settle for two out of three. Clearly and slowly will do.

Mr. Samis: Did the Minister of Labour get those? Oh my God. What’s the name of that school the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) goes to?

Mr. T. P. Reid: Belleville School for the Deaf.

Mr. Samis: Could the minister tell us, are there any further negotiations planned? Secondly, from Ontario’s perspective with the July 1 deadline in sight, what specifically is she aiming for in these negotiations?

Hon. B. Stephenson: We have, of course, been aiming for a resolution of the problem. To the construction industry and the province of Ontario the problem appears to be a complete inhibition of mobility of construction workers in so far as the Quebec-Ontario border is concerned.

I anticipate that I will be having a communication from the honourable minister either this afternoon or tomorrow morning. I anticipate that there will be further communication with him as a result of receiving that and I am hopeful that we will be able to resolve the difficulty.

Mr. Martel: And you will report to the House?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I always report to the House.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary: Since the minister said when I raised this matter on March 28 that she was still waiting for a legal opinion on whether or not those regulations could be successfully challenged in the court, does she have that opinion? And since she said at that time she “is moving on a different tack,” can she tell us what that tack is?

Mr. Martel: This is a pointed one.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I am sure the honourable member is aware that I reported to this House that we had received the legal opinion and that it was not entirely supportive of the idea that it could be challenged successfully. We have made some approaches as well to our colleagues at the federal level because this does happen to be an inter-provincial problem in which I think they might have some interest, with the hope that perhaps there might be --

Mr. Wildman: I have heard of marching to a different drum. She goes with a completely different band.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- some action that could be taken at that level. It is our hope that we will have some response to the questions which were levelled at the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Justice and others in Ottawa -- hopefully this week.

Mr. Roy: Would Joe Clark not help you up there?

Mr. Samis: Zero on the score card.

Mr. S. Smith: I haven’t heard Joe Clark speak on that.

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

Mr. Laughren: Thank goodness for that.

REPORT

STATUTORY EXPENSES

Mr. Speaker: I would like to advise all members that I have today tabled a statement of statutory expenses incurred by the members of the House which have been paid for from the Legislative Assembly fund.

MOTION

STANDING GENERAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the standing general government committee be authorized to sit in camera concurrently with the House tonight at 8 p.m. to consider sessional paper 13, the report on the policy options for continuing tenant protection.

Motion agreed to.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the day, pursuant to standing order number 28, the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) has given notice of her dissatisfaction to the answer to her question given by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McCague) concerning pollution controls in Hawkesbury. This matter will be debated at 10:30 tonight.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity, before calling the first order, to advise that in addition to the meeting tonight, I am told that the standing general government committee will meet tomorrow morning at 9 rather than at 10 as indicated in the notice.

To accommodate the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow), may I indicate a brief change in the order of calling bills this afternoon. We will start with Bill 66 in committee.

Mr. Nixon: Oh, let’s not do that first.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Following which we will do, and hopefully complete, Bill 108, and then carry on as the order paper suggests.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

YORK MUNICIPAL HYDRO-ELECTRIC SERVICE ACT, 1978

House in committee on Bill 66,

An Act to provide for Municipal Hydro-Electric Service in the Regional Municipality of York.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any comments, questions or amendments to this bill, and if so on what section?

Section 1 agreed to.

section 2:

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I should like to introduce an amendment to

section 2, in order to bring subsection 16 into line with

section 39 of the Municipal Act.

Section 39 prohibits anyone from running for more than one municipal office in the same election. The reference in the bill to “Members of council ... elected as members of the commission” is therefore an eventuality which cannot occur. Members of the council may become members of a commission only by appointment.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Baetz moves that subsection 16 of

section of the bill be amended by striking out “or elected” in the third line.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to this; it is just tidying up the bill. I have some questions about the explanation given by the minister. It seemed to me that the reason for deleting this was that in fact the first year they are appointed by the act, and therefore the word “elected” served no useful purpose there. I think all members are appointed for the first term of office and this refers back to that. There is no election, and for that reason I would concur that it should be deleted, although I was a little bit confused by the explanation given by the minister.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: It simply confirms your view in that the word “elected” is really quite redundant and should be left out.

Motion agreed to.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

Section 3 agreed to.

section 4:

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Baetz moves that

section 4 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection: “

(14) For the purpose of the calculations mentioned in subsections 7, 8 and 10, ‘original cost’ and ‘equity’ do not include capital contributions by customers or developers.”

[3:30]

Hon. Mr. Baetz: This amendment is a compromise agreed upon by representatives of Vaughan, Richmond Hill, the provincial steering committee and Ontario Hydro. It clarifies the method of calculating the purchase price of assets transferred in the course of restructuring.

Because contributions made by developers are never capitalized by Ontario Hydro, the amendment does not change the formula applied to assets transferred from Ontario Hydro. This formula is identical to that in the three previous restructuring acts. However, the amendment will make a slight change in the formula applied to inter-municipal transfers at the request of the two municipalities involved, namely, Vaughan and Richmond Hill.

For the purpose of restructuring only, Vaughan hydro-electric commission will adopt the practice of Ontario Hydro, and of many other municipalities, and will not capitalize developers’ contributions. While it is not anticipated that this change will have a major effect on the actual price for the assets, I am pleased to present to this House a method of calculation preferred by the municipalities affected.

Mr. Stong: I wasn’t anticipating the introduction of this subsection at this time. I have an amendment to subsection 11 of

section 4 that I want to offer as well, so I would like to be able to go back to that subsection. I do want to speak to this amendment as well.

The amendment offered by the minister, subsection 14, is wholly in agreement with what I have endeavoured to do through meetings with the municipalities involved, particularly Richmond Hill, Markham and Vaughan. We are in agreement entirely with the subsection and with the amendment to the act. Although the minister has said that Ontario Hydro does not capitalize these contributions, there is a great deal of confusion surrounding exactly what Ontario Hydro does do to arrive at its calculations.

Because of the indefiniteness, confusion and lack of formula in arriving at any calculations in this regard, I have offered an amendment myself which is incorporated into the amendment offered by the minister. We are particularly in agreement with that.

I might say as well, Mr. Chairman, that the circumstances giving rise to this amendment may not be unique in their applications, but because of the magnitude of the capital assets acquired by developers’ contributions since January 1, 1971, a growth in equity may result if this amendment is not placed in the bill. Its incorporation may result, as well, in reductions in cost to the existing and future customers and consumers within the new subdivisions, particularly in the area of Richmond Hill and Vaughan.

Specifically, Mr. Chairman, more than $775,000 in capital contributions has been collected by the town of Richmond Hill by subdivision agreements. These funds have been transferred to the Vaughan hydro-electric commission for the construction of a new plant and for new service for these developments. In turn, the developer passed these capital assets on to the new home owners. My concern is remedied by virtue of this amendment. The proposed legislation, as it was introduced, would include the value of these same assets as part of the compensation payments.

So, whether we accept what Ontario Hydro says or not, there is still a grey area in this matter and no one seems to know. We get different opinions from different people, and no matter with whom you speak, home owners and consumers would be paying again. They paid the purchase price of their home, and by virtue of the fact of the restructuring, they are fearful that they would have to pay higher rates again. So, this amendment offered by the minister, based on the wishes of the communities involved and on the amendments I am introducing, remedies that situation.

The area involved presently contains about 3,000 consumer units. Of these, some 45 per cent are within the new subdivision previously referred to by me. These statistics are further magnified by the fact the capital contributions were sufficient to provide the hydro-electric plant for an additional 2,700 dwellings not yet built or occupied. Using these same statistics, it is reasonable to assume that as much as 70 per cent of the assets in that portion of the town of Richmond Hill supplied with power by the hydro-electric power commission of the town of Vaughan were paid for in cash in money already transferred.

It is also reasonable to state, I submit, that the equity of a consumer in the town of Vaughan may be grossly overstated because of these capital contributions. In fact, a large portion of this equity is owned by future customers whose investment in the plant was prepaid many years in advance.

The whole thing is ironical, however, because if the hydro commissions had been restructured in 1971 with the boundaries coterminous with those of the area municipalities as they were structured by regional government, then this problem would not have been presented this take-over and paying for capital outlay. However, with major developments in the Yonge and Bathurst corridor in the interim, we now have to deal with this problem.

It is for these reasons I support this amendment as it applies to the take-over by the town of Richmond Hill of that part of the plant owned now by the town of Vaughan, and also in terms of the take-over of the Markham commission and other commissions throughout the regional municipality of York, which will be set up by this act, from Ontario Hydro and because no one seems to know definitively what Ontario Hydro does, what it accounts for and how it organizes its books in making these accountings.

There are so many opinions on that that this amendment offered by the minister is wholly acceptable to us and ought to give some guidelines in the event there is any determination under arbitration for the capital transfers in all of these areas. So we accept the amendment.

Mr. Swart: This amendment seems to provide two things as the member for York Centre has stated. One is a principle that can be carried forward in subsequent bills for restructuring. I have a special interest because there may be one coming in from the Niagara area in the not-too-distant future. Secondly, it resolves the problem with regard to Vaughan township and Newmarket.

Mr. Hodgson: Newmarket?

Mr. Swart: I am not sure that I totally agree with the minister that it is a compromise per se. It looks to me as though it implements what the member for York Centre had originally proposed, namely, that consideration must be given to the deduction made for those funds which had been expended by the developer in installing services in subdivisions.

However, it does seem to make an amicable resolution of the problem. Because the principle is one that we can support we will raise no objection to this amendment.

Mr. Stong: We are making progress and history.

Mr. Hodgson: I rise to support the resolution. I have talked to Vaughan representatives and the hydro commission in Vaughan and it is quite acceptable to them. In fact, the division of assets as provided by the developer was quite acceptable prior to a resolution at a meeting the ministry had in Richmond Hill, attended by the member for York Centre, myself and representatives for both municipalities and the hydro commission, where Vaughan agreed if there were any assets provided by the developer, they weren’t going to charge Richmond Hill. Now it is in legislation and will be there for ever and ever.

I must make an apology to Ontario Hydro at this time. I spoke on the principle of the bill with the belief that in those areas -- for instance, the town of Newmarket, the town of Aurora, and the town of Markham, which are taking in certain areas from Ontario Hydro -- had those --

Mr. Stong: And correctly so, too.

Mr. Hodgson: -- services paid for by the developer, but that is not the case. No, it wasn’t the case.

Mr. Stong: They dazzled you with their footwork there, Bill.

Mr. Hodgson: Listen, I didn’t interrupt you, Mr. Member.

I find in speaking to developers in the area that Ontario Hydro pays all the expenses for an overhead line. If underground wiring is to be installed, the developer is asked to pay the difference between underground wiring and overhead wiring in the first instance. Over a few years as the development goes on, Ontario Hydro pays the developer back the full amount of that investment, less four per cent depreciation.

I have to make an apology because I wasn’t fully informed and I don’t think the member for York Centre was fully informed. I just want to say that I go along with this wholeheartedly. I support it 100 per cent.

Mr. Stong: I think I do have to make a comment in answer to the member for York North. It’s not that I wasn’t fully informed.

In offering this amendment to the minister, it became very clear that there were many people who were confused on this issue. Ontario Hydro certainly went out of its way to fight the amendment and it was very difficult to get this amendment introduced into the legislation.

The amendment covers not only original costs but equity. As I recall, the meeting to which the member for York North refers, that we were both in attendance, Vaughan Hydro was really not satisfied at all with the equity portion of this particular amendment and Ontario Hydro certainly has never agreed to it. However, both original cost of assets and equity are included and that is exactly the purport of the original amendment proposed by me.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comments?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further amendment to

section 4?

Mr. Stong: I have an amendment to subsection 11, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Stong moves that subsection 11 of

section 4 of the bill be amended by striking out “the decision of the board of arbitration should not be subject to appeal and” in the sixth and seventh lines. The member for York Centre.

Mr. Stong: The purport of the amendment will be that in the event there was an arbitration, either side can appeal that arbitration pursuant to the Arbitrations Act.

Originally when this bill on the restructuring of the municipal hydro-electric service in the regional municipality of York was proposed, the proposal was the arbitration be set up in one single arbitrator and that there be no appeal from that. However, pursuant to meetings with the ministry and with municipalities, the minister then introduced the bill, recognizing the fact that the provisions of the Arbitrations Act should be applicable to this act, so more than one arbitrator could be set up to settle any dispute.

[3:45]

But, in proposing this bill and introducing it, the minister has taken away specifically any right of appeal from that arbitration, thereby circumventing the operation of the Arbitrations Act which is applicable to many other situations throughout the province of Ontario including labour disputes, to name only one.

It would seem to me in this type of situation we are depriving either side of a right that would ordinarily be theirs under other statutes, in other situations. To deprive either party of a right of appeal is a gross inadequacy in our law and ought to be avoided at all cost.

With respect to guidelines that have been set down in this bill in other sections I hope there will be no need for appeal. The arbitrators, we assume, will be calm, sensible, knowledgeable people, one appointed by each side with those two appointing a third. Hopefully, as a result of that type of board hearing, even if an arbitration arises, there will be no need for an appeal

However, it is my opinion, having given the right of appeal under the Arbitrations Act, we ought not specifically to exclude it by virtue of this legislation. The Arbitrations Act ought to apply fully to this legislation as it would to any other legislation.

As a result of that, I offer my amendment which would include the provision of appeal as pursuant to any other statute of Ontario and not specifically excluded by this act.

Mr. Swart: I doubt if this is one of the most important things that will come before the Legislature in the next two weeks, this week and next week, and perhaps some for time after that if we don’t get finished. I would anticipate at least a 20 to one ratio -- that there would never be any need for an appeal beyond this.

I’m rather impressed with the procedures that are used for the appointments in this bill. In most other arbitrations, the first two appoint a third person, and if they cannot agree on that person the third person is appointed by the minister. It varies, but in many instances it is the minister who makes the appointment.

However, in this case there’s an application made to the court so I think you’re relatively certain you will get a person appointed by the court who is neutral. Therefore, I would anticipate the decision that was made would be as fair as it is possible to make.

However, having said all that, I’m a little concerned about the precedent that may be set here with regard to appeals. Where do we go next time with denying the right of appeal? Recognizing full well the costs which are always involved in appeals, whether they are appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board or wherever they may be, and that these costs always inevitably have to be borne by the consumer or by the taxpayer in one way or another, I still think the principle of the right of appeal should remain.

If the words are taken out, as suggested by the member for York Centre, it does not imply there is going to be an appeal, but it leaves that right there under the other acts. Because I’m hesitant on the matter of principle to take this away, I and my party will be supporting the amendment put forward by the member for York Centre.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Up until now, as has been indicated on both sides of the House, this exercise has been one of beautiful harmony and compromise all around, but I do believe on this particular point we have some real difficulties in agreeing to this amendment.

As I think the member opposite knows, by indicating that there should be three members on the arbitration body instead of the usual one, we have already made a substantial concession. We frankly think it is unnecessary that in addition to having a board of three members we should agree to a procedure of further appeal. It would be very expensive, it would be time consuming and would just draw out the process.

If there were perhaps one person as arbitrator, the question of appeal could be considered. But if you have three people, carefully named to make sure that they represent all sides, it really seems to us that it goes on ad absurdum to simply take it from there to another appeal body. Therefore, quite frankly we feel that we cannot support that particular amendment. It is unfortunate, because this has been a great exercise in compromise and in a bipartisan approach to a local problem. We would hope, in an appeal to the members opposite, that we could continue right down to this last item to make it unanimous.

Mr. Stong: It is unfortunate that the minister does not agree in principle with the amendment. I think the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) expressed it very well when he said the chances are 20 to 1 that we will not even reach this stage. But in principle we ought not to take away a right of appeal that exists in other situations. Sure, it would be time consuming and it would be expensive, but I think cool heads and reasonable people will prevail in situations such as this in arriving at a compromise. However, in the event they cannot, I don’t think we should take away the right of appeal, as the member for Welland-Thorold has so aptly said.

Motion agreed to.

Section 4, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 5 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill 66, as amended, reported.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading on motion:

Bill 66,

An Act to provide for Municipal Hydro-Electric Service in the Regional Municipality of York.

MUSKOKA AND PARRY SOUND TELEPHONE COMPANY LIMITED ACQUISITION ACT (CONTINUED)

Resumption of the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 108,

An Act to acquire the Assets of the Muskoka and Parry Sound Telephone Company Limited.

Mr. Foulds: Carried.

Mr. Sweeney: Not quite, I say to the member for Port Arthur. As a matter of fact, the member for Port Arthur is so anxious to get this bill through --

Mr. Foulds: Oh, no.

Mr. Sweeney: -- that if I were the minister, I would have grave reservations.

Mr. M. Davidson: They like the way it’s worded, John.

Mr. Foulds: I could have gone on for another 15 minutes.

Mr. Sweeney: Yes, I hear that they want to use it for a model. That bothers me, too, rather gravely. I wonder what has possessed the minister to be so obliging, to use the expression of the member for Port Arthur, to “the socialist hordes in the House.”

Mr. Foulds: It’s the health and safety of the public.

Hon. Mr. Snow: It’s not normally my inclination.

Mr. Sweeney: That’s what I mean. I find that surprising. I won’t be too long.

I read over the debate from yesterday, and it’s fairly obvious that the tone of that debate is that this bill will probably carry. However, there are other sides to it and, in all fairness, I want to present those sides to the House.

I have no doubt whatsoever -- I see the member from the area here -- that the service which is being provided in that particular area is not adequate. In my judgement, that is not the question. That is given, that is accepted. The question we have to ask ourselves, however, is why is the service not adequate? Is it because the owners of the company are not willing to provide the service? Is it because they are not able to provide the service? Or is there something within the structure of operating telephone systems in this province which makes it difficult, if not impossible? Let me speak very briefly to those.

First, we’re dealing here with a very large geographical area and a relatively small number of subscribers -- 800 square miles and fewer than 1,500 subscribers. One of the problems is that, as I understand it, the people who are complaining the most about poor service are people living in summer cottages coming up there from the city.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Oh no. There are also two fire halls without service.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Permanent residents.

Mr. Sweeney: Permanent residents as well? Okay.

The difficulty, as I understand it, is the rate base which has been allowed to this company. As I read

section 12 of the act, it seems to say pretty clearly to me that the rates and the tolls charged should pay for the funded debt and interest and a reasonable return on capital. Yet we know that the owners of the company have gone before the board recently and asked for a rate increase which would do that; in other words, applying directly to the legislation. The decision was that they should not be given that rate increase, because there was evidence that they were not providing adequate service. It goes on to say that even granting the application would not come close to creating a situation which would permit the needs to be met.

In other words, clearly what the board is saying is that “We’re not going to provide an increase because you’re not providing the service.” Yet the owners are turning right around and saying, “The reason we can’t provide the service is because we’re not getting the income.”

I understand that there are a couple of situations where phones are placed at such distances that the owners are paying more in charges to Hydro to run the wire along their hydro poles than what they’re getting in return from the phone owners. In other words, it’s a net loss every time they string a line out that way.

I notice that the member for Port Arthur yesterday alluded to the efficiency of Thunder Bay. That’s not a fair comparison. We’re talking about two independents. First of all, Thunder Bay is a compact city in a relatively smaller area, where you have thousands and thousands of subscribers --

Mr. Foulds: It goes out into the rural area.

Mr. Sweeney: -- abut you’ve got a solid urban base. You don’t have that in this area.

The second point, and equally important, is that the Thunder Bay company is owned by the municipality and is therefore not subject to many of the taxes which this private company has to pay.

Mr. Foulds: I just used it as an example of independent companies that are --

Mr. Sweeney: Yes, I realize that, I say to the member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Ruston: This one is to your advantage, yes.

Mr. Sweeney: All I’m trying to suggest is it’s not a fair comparison.

Mr. Bradley: Great pitchers -- poor catchers.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sweeney: It’s very easy to say that some independent companies can get along fine, and why can’t this one --

[4:00]

Mr. Foulds: I didn’t make the comparison on a one-to-one basis.

Mr. Sweeney: There are two different situations. I noticed that one of the biggest complainers in this area was one of the summer tourist camps. It is interesting to note that that particular summer tourist camp got a grant from the Ministry of Industry and Tourism a little while back for something in the neighbourhood of $240,000. Shortly thereafter, the owner picks up and walks away. In other words, one branch of the government is quite prepared to recognize that in order to operate efficiently in that area and to draw people in, there has to be some government support. That’s fine for the tourist camp but not for this company.

It clearly seems evident to me that the funding structure here would simply make it impossible for anyone to operate that system at the rates that are being allowed, pay his debts and make any kind of a return on the investment whatsoever. I guess what I am suggesting is that this is going to have to be subsidized in some way by someone. Whether the government takes it over, whether Bell takes it over or whether another independent goes in, they are not going to be able to operate that system and provide the service that is required with the existing rates. Those rates are going to have to go up.

I don’t know how much they are going to have to go up. The other alternative is that some form of subsidy is going to have to be paid. I don’t know how that’s done, quite frankly. I understand that it’s not permissible directly from the government, but it is going to have to be done by someone.

The concern I have in this particular case is that in the minister’s statement of a couple of weeks ago he makes the observation that the company has had a couple of years to try to get its house in order. They have been offered to be bought out by the government, to be bought out by Bell Telephone or to be restructured by some independents. But look at the prices that are being offered.

As I understand it, the total investment in this company and everything is in the neighbourhood of $900,000.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Now let’s be honest.

Mr. Sweeney: The debt is $750,000 and there is an inequity investment of something like $175,000. They were offered $450,000. Heck, there is nobody in this House who would accept that kind of an offer. Yet the minister’s statement seems to criticize them for that. That’s not reasonable. That’s not fair. What else would he expect them to do under those particular circumstances?

There is a third point that needs to have a good look taken at it. I don’t know how this affects other companies but I understand that the toll exchange rates between Bell Canada and some of these independents is not as fair as it could be. In other words, Bell Canada with its big clout can go through some of the small independent operations and pay a certain rate, but when it goes the other way the rate is more expensive. In other words, there isn’t a fair exchange of toll rates.

I don’t know all the ins and outs of that, but it’s something I think the minister definitely needs to look into.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The other 35 aren’t complaining about it.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sweeney: Are we comparing apples and apples? That’s the question. I get the distinct impression we aren’t. Let’s go to the end of the line. As I said at the beginning, it looks as if this bill is going to pass. Is there some evidence at this point or can the minister give me some assurance that the final evaluation settlement has a chance of being fair? Let me show the minister what I’m speaking of.

In order to make that kind of evaluation, I would understand that he would have to bring in experts to look at the whole technology of the thing. Where are those experts going to come from? There are only two sources. One is Bell Canada, which is one of the ones that wanted to buy it out for $450,000, half of what it’s worth. The second is the government, which also wanted to buy it out for $450,000.

I’m not saying anyone is going to do something improper. But, given those kinds of sources, what kind of a real chance of getting a fair price do the owners of this company have? I would like the minister to speak briefly to that. If I had some sense that they were going to come out of this reasonably fairly with some sense of justice, then I would have less opposition to it. At the present time, I don’t get that sense. What it all boils down to is that I am not convinced that the owners of the company really have had a fair shake.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Oh, my goodness!

Mr. Sweeney: I am not sure, even with this particular process, that they are going to end up having a fair shake. I would like to hear the minister’s comment on that.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Are there any further speakers?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Yes. I will keep my remarks very short. There are a few remarks that the member for Kitchener-Wilmot made that I just can’t let go without challenging a little bit.

I suppose I am the member who is most concerned with this particular problem because most of the telephone system is in my riding. A small portion is in Muskoka, but the major portion of it is in my riding. For the last three years I have been receiving on the average five or six letters every week regarding the poor phone service. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, those letters did not all come from summer residents by any means. They came from permanent residents who have to live with that system.

I just believe in this day and age in the province of Ontario people are entitled to a little bit better service than what has been supplied in that particular area.

I have a great deal of respect for the owner of the telephone company. I know him personally. He is a fine gentleman. I was hoping this bill would never have to be brought to the Legislature. However, it has got to the point where something must be done for the people in that area. They have had a great amount of difficulty and I just don’t feel they should have to put up with any more of it.

I would like to also point out that the member for Kitchener-Wilmot suggested a grant was given to a tourist operator in the amount of two hundred and some thousand dollars. I would suggest to him no grants are given to any tourist operators in the province of Ontario. There are such things as loans that have to be paid back, but they are not grants. We have not been giving grants through NODC or any other ministry department for the last three or four years. At one point we did have what we call performance loans, but they were discontinued some time ago.

There were no grants to any tourist operator, but there possibly could have been loans. That person would still be responsible to pay the money back to the province.

I know of at least two fire departments which have been without telephone service from time to time, and for a great period of time. This becomes a safety factor and it has just got to the point where something has to be done.

I know of one area where the phone service was out for eight months. Local people living there were complaining, phoning me weekly, sometimes daily, if I happened to be in the riding. They asked, “When is our phone going to be reinstated? When are we going to have telephone service?” While I have, as I said, a great deal of respect for Mr. Schmidt, the very fine gentleman who is the owner of the company, I do question his ability to operate a telephone company.

The argument about the rates has gone on and on. I have personally attended two public meetings held in my riding regarding rate increases, and applications made to the telephone commission. As the member has indicated, there were always two sides to the argument. The operator suggested he couldn’t provide the service unless he got more money, and the people said, “We are not prepared to pay more money unless you give us some service. We don’t mind paying, but we want some service.” So there was always a stalemate on the issue.

The rates there are not that much different from the rates in the rest of the province of Ontario. I realize it is a very sparsely populated area, and it is a large area. There are a lot of telephone lines that must be maintained, but surely he could have done a little better than he did.

I can recall people phoning me to tell me the lines were on the ground, and in the wintertime were being cut by the wings of snowploughs. They would be without a telephone for weeks until somebody finally decided to come and dig up the line and splice it together. This is the type of thing that has been going on. That is the reason I fully support the minister’s action in this matter. I would hope every member would see that this bill is passed as quickly as possible so those people can have some assurance of a better telephone system.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to support the bill. I think one has to visit the people who are served by this particular telephone company to appreciate their remote locations and the patience they have had in putting up with, to say inferior service is an understatement.

I’ve visited these homes, some of them 10 to 20 miles from the nearest community.

Mr. Wildman: Bell gives us inferior service in the north too.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I’ve seen the telephone wires lying along the edge of the road in the summertime, just lying on the ground. Local people would come along and jack them up over branches of trees hoping that the service would work. I’ve talked to a tourist operator on Buck Lake --

Mr. Bradley: Just homesick.

Hon. F. S. Miller: -- who hadn’t been able to get calls from potential clients for weeks at a time. The poor soul had the great embarrassment of having the telephone ring while I was there. That was the first time in weeks that it had worked at all.

Mr. Wildman: The tourist outfitters in my area have that trouble with Bell.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Just local member problems.

Hon. F. S. Miller: But the fact remains that rates were not the issue. It had to be remembered that just because it wasn’t part of the Bell system people on that system were paying long distance tolls to make calls that traditionally had been considered local calls. Every call to Huntsville from the people in the Buck Lake area has been charged as a long distance call if, as and when they could get a telephone call through.

Senior citizens living out there -- not those who moved there, in many cases those who had grown up there -- have been without any service for days at a time and often worried about their inability to communicate even with a neighbour under had weather conditions.

I would think that they have the right, in this day and age, when there have been offers made in the company to have a good system. I could only endorse the prompt remedy of the deficient service.

Mr. Wildman: Nationalization.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, while listening to the debate here and reading over the bill yesterday, I can understand the concern the member for Kitchener-Wilmot has. Having been involved in the telephone system for eight years in my years in the municipal council, and chairman of our own system for six years -- it was sold out after a few years -- I know the telephone industry is a very capital intensive industry. I’m sure the member for Port Arthur, when he spoke about the one in his city, would recognize this. If you have a major city to make your money on then you can go out and service the rural areas.

But if you’ve been involved in a telephone system that serves a rural area, Mr. Speaker, you can get involved in a great deal of capital expenditures before the money starts coming back in.

Mr. Foulds: True, true. That’s fair.

Mr. Ruston: I would take it from what the members for Parry Sound and Muskoka have said regarding the area involved this is, no doubt, one of the problems in this system.

Mr. Wildman: They are socialists.

Mr. Ruston: I suppose part of the problem is the rate structure. In our own cases we would go to the Ontario Telephone Services Commission, at that time, and apply for rates. We had to be competitive with adjoining telephone systems -- I think that also had to be considered. They also had to consider the service being supplied; if it was in an area where it was hard to pick up enough users then, naturally, their costs will go up.

Our own system used to charge a long distance toll into the city of Windsor which was only 15 or 18 miles away. Twelve lines served that area of about 900 phones. We put in toll-free service and we needed 80 lines to serve the same area. That gives you an idea of what the cost is. It cost us $125,000 just to put in a service like that.

I’m concerned about the province owning this system because I’m sure that we should not be in the telephone business in only one area like this and subsidize it. If we’re going to own any of the telephone industry, we’d better own some in the heavily-populated areas to offset the loss in the rural areas.

Mr. Wildman: Take over it all. Take over the whole thing.

Mr. Nixon: Those are irresponsible suggestions.

Mr. Ruston: But I’m not in favour of the province going into the telephone service en masse by any means. I think it would probably be like Ontario Hydro -- it would grow so fast that no one would ever know where it was going and now we’re trying to hold it down.

[4:15]

I have concerns for the owner of this system, because to serve an area such as this and fix it up certainly would be capital-intensive. But I am concerned about what the province is going to do with it, now that they are taking steps to take it over. I would hope that they would put it up for sale and get a fair price, so all involved would not lose too much.

I certainly would not be in favour of the province getting into the telephone industry in Ontario because of the capital it takes. That was part of the problem with the local municipal systems. Every time one wanted to get a debenture, one had to get approval from the subscribers and the Ontario Municipal Board. It required so much capital it was almost impossible to handle. That’s why many of them have been sold out in the meantime.

In our own area, Bell Canada formed a company to take over one of the systems and I think, if I remember correctly, they paid about $800,000 or $900,000 for it. Bell transferred an additional $1 million to bring it up to date and after three years that was all gone. Then they abandoned their charter and turned it over to Bell. It gives you an idea of the capital it takes to give good telephone service, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure I did not add too much to the debate but I am concerned with the wide area that this system covers. Naturally, people have to have service and I am sure we have sympathy for the owner of the system, but if he cannot raise the capital to put it in shape to operate it, then I suppose we do not have much choice now but to take it over and hopefully sell it.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Are there any further speakers to this bill?

The honourable minister.

Mr. Wildman: Take over Bell.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the honourable members for their contributions to the debate on second reading of this bill.

As I explained at the beginning, I regret very much having to bring legislation such as this before the House and ask the House to deal with it expeditiously so we can get on with trying to get a reasonable telephone service for the 1,500 or so subscribers in the Muskoka-Parry Sound service area, an area of some 800 square miles. I might mention that as of May 17, there were about 150 minimum subscribers that were out of service at that particular time; some had been out for various periods from three or four days to 30 days.

Included in that group that had no telephone service were two township fire halls, so I think you can see the problem and the necessity to take some type of drastic action.

Officials from my ministry, my deputy minister and myself have met with Mr. Schmidt, and I have to say as a gentleman he is a very fine man. I feel some concern for him because of the unfortunate financial and business situation that he has got himself in concerning the ownership of this telephone company.

It is certainly not the intention of the province of Ontario to get into the telephone business.

Mr. Foulds: What a pity.

Hon. Mr. Snow: As I am sure many of the members know, the province is involved, to some degree, and has been for many years, through the Ontario Northland Telecommunications System in northern Ontario, but I assure the House it is not our intention, even though the socialists would like us to -- they are all alone over there -- to start socializing these telephone companies.

Interjections.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The member for Wentworth North and the member for Essex North both asked what our plans were for the company. I am surprised at that because the statement I made a few days ago was very explicit as to what our intentions were: when this bill is passed, we intend to make some immediate and emergency repairs where we can, to improve service. It will necessitate spending some provincial dollars, but we will immediately put the system up for sale. There are several options as to what its future might be. It could be bought by Bell, of course.

Mr. Foulds: I hope not.

Hon. Mr. Snow: It could be bought by one of the other independent telephone companies. I might say that I met with the executive of the Ontario Independent Telephone Association with regard to this particular problem, and I must say they had no answer for me as to any other option that I had other than to proceed with this bill.

Not as an association but as a group of individuals, some of the well-established private telephone companies offered financial and management assistance to the owner of this company to try to save the company for him. Although I wasn’t involved directly in it, I understand this proposition was turned down, as was the offer of Bell to purchase the company, and as was the offer that we made as a province prior to taking this expropriation action.

This is certainly not a move on behalf of this government in any way to take over the telephone systems or the private telephone companies.

An hon. member: Shame.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I have to say that the 35 or 36 private telephone companies we have in the province, some of them municipally owned, such as Thunder Bay -- and the member for Port Arthur’s comparing the Thunder Bay system with the Muskoka and Parry Sound system was like comparing --

Mr. Foulds: An elephant with a fly.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- an elephant with a squirrel; I could think of other things but I had better not.

In any case there are other telephone systems in the province that are quite rural in nature. The Bruce Peninsula and Manitoulin Islands are two areas I can think of that have private systems; they are maybe not in quite as sparsely a settled area as this but still do run a good system and provide a good service. So the private companies are doing an excellent job in Ontario and I hope they continue to do so.

Mr. Foulds: Take over Bell.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I do hope that when this bill is passed, assuming that it will be, we will be able to improve the service for these people who have been very patient over the past two years. While I have been trying to give every opportunity to Mr. Schmidt to improve his situation and to improve the service, I have to say that I could not in any way suggest that a rate increase should be granted without there being improvement in service. You don’t grant a substantial rate increase which would have been needed to assist this man financially when the phones won’t even work.

I’m sure you wouldn’t expect the people to pay a higher price for a system that wasn’t working on the assumption that it might work some day.

I can assure the honourable members that Mr. Schmidt as the majority owner -- I believe there are some other minor shareholders -- will be used fairly. This is being carried out through this special act but we intend to use the normal expropriation procedure. I expect the settlement of the total compensation to be paid will be established by the Ontario Land Compensation Board, which I am sure will deal fairly. Mr. Schmidt and his lawyer, his consultants, or whoever he may wish to give evidence, will be able to present that evidence to the board, as will the government.

There are independent consultants. The member for Kitchener-Wilmot suggested there is nobody other than Bell who knows how to evaluate a telephone company, and that is not correct at all. I think there are other expert witnesses. There are people in the private telephone companies. I understand there are private consultants -- perhaps none right here in Ontario, but there are some in the United States and in western Canada -- who would be considered expert witnesses to give an evaluation of the assets of the company. I would ask the support of the House to pass this bill.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Ordered for third reading.

THIRD READING

Hon. Mr. Snow moved third reading of Bill 108,

An Act to acquire the Assets of the Muskoka and Parry Sound Telephone Company Limited.

Mr. Foulds: One brief comment. If I implied that there was a comparison between this telephone system and the telephone system in the city of Thunder Bay, I did not of course mean that when I was speaking yesterday. I was just using the city of Thunder Bay telephone system as an example of an independent system that could work well. If it should be sold again I personally would prefer the Muskoka and Parry Sound system be sold to another independent -- or conglomeration of independents -- rather than to Bell, which is a monopoly. The independents in the province have shown that they can by and large operate efficient systems.

Motion agreed to.

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

Resumption of the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 83,

An Act to ame