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

October 26, 1976

30th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L098 - Tue 26 Oct 1976 / Mar 26 oct 1976

PATRIATION OF THE CONSTITUTION

FARM INCOME STABILIZATION PLAN

ROYAL COMMISSION ON MINING SAFETY

FAMILY LAW REFORM

CITIZEN COMPLAINTS AGAINST POLICE

WINE CONTENT

CORPORATIONS INFORMATION ACT

HOME BUYER GRANT AUDIT

ASSESSMENT, GIFT TAX AMENDMENTS

REED PAPER

REED PAPER

GASOLINE PRICES IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

REED PAPER

RACIAL ATTACK

PUBLIC HEALTH NURSES’ NEGOTIATIONS

MINE CLOSINGS

RELEASE OF INDIVIDUAL FROM MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE

TRICIL WASTE MANAGEMENT

DUNDAS P.U.C. INQUIRY

LAND ANNEXATION IN BARRIE AREA

REPORT

MOTION

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

FARM INCOME STABILIZATION

CORONERS AMENDMENT ACT

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT

GIFT TAX AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2)

WINE CONTENT ACT

CORPORATIONS INFORMATION ACT

BUSINESS CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

EMPLOYEE’S HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT

FAMILY LAW REFORM ACT

MARRIAGE ACT

HOSPITAL LABOUR DISPUTES ARBITRATION AMENDMENT ACT

TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ACT

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH DATA ACT

RIGHT TO REFUSE TO PERFORM DANGEROUS WORK ACT

HEALTH AND SAFETY COMMITTEES ACT

WORKER-INSPECTOR ACT

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

CREDIT UNIONS ACT

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the House will wish to welcome a distinguished member of Parliament of Finland in the person of Mrs. Mirjam Vire-Tuominen, who is seated in the Speaker’s gallery.

Before we start the business of the day, I know that the members will be saddened to hear that Major G. Reginald Soame, who has served this House with distinction for a number of years, has been compelled by ill health to retire. I know that I express the feelings of all the members when I wish for his improved health.

At the same time I am pleased to announce that Mr. Thomas Stelling, who is well known to all of you and who has been a diligent and faithful servant of this House for a great many years, most recently as chief legislative attendant and, during Major Soame’s enforced absence, acting Sergeant-at-Arms, has been appointed Sergeant-at-Arms to succeed Major Soame. Mr. Stelling will continue to exercise the duties that he has performed in the past, joined with the ceremonial duties of Sergeant-at-Arms, so that he will continue to direct the attendants and pages, such duties properly being the responsibility of the Sergeant-at-Arms.

Perhaps this would also be an opportune time to inform the House of the retirement, as legislative counsel, of Mr. W. C. Alcombrack, QC. I know that all the members of this House are very familiar with Mr. Alcombrack’s outstanding ability and his services to the members and the House. He will be missed but, again, I am happy to advise that his position will be filled by Mr. A. N. Stone, QC, who has been Mr. Alcombrack’s right-hand man for many years and whose abilities are also well known to the members.

Statements by the ministry.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome the members back from what I hope was a pleasant and productive summer recess.

Mr. Cassidy: It was too long, actually.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, I knew the member for Ottawa Centre would feel any vacation away from here would be too long. I can only say to him that all of us -- even some of his own colleagues -- share that point of view as it relates to the member for Ottawa Centre from time to time, not always.

Before I deal with a matter of constitutional interest, I did want, in this House, to express the government’s appreciation to the former chief government whip, the member for Mississauga South (Mr. Kennedy), who has always acted very fairly and decently with all members and I know that you will all want to wish him well in his new responsibilities.

Members will also notice that the very arduous job of chief government whip is now being performed by the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Maeck) and that his responsibilities have been made somewhat more difficult by an additional member to the government side of the House.

Mr. Breithaupt: He will make them difficult.

Mr. Ruston: You will find out how difficult, too.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It causes us complications for space, something you people don’t totally understand.

Mr. Reid: I notice he is not sitting right behind you.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I refer of course, Mr. Speaker, to the member for London North (Mr. Shore) and we welcome his presence here as a Progressive Conservative.

Mr. Cassidy: He is the impending former member.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We welcome him here as a great Canadian with a wealth of political and administrative experience to bring to hear.

Mr. Peterson: And good judgement too.

Hon. Mr. Davis: And we welcome him to a cause of a strong and dynamic Ontario and we want to publicly express this welcome to him.

Mr. Peterson: Do you know what he thinks about you?

Mr. Cassidy: His career will be brief.

Mr. Reid: Is he still dizzy from all the turns he is making?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, without becoming provocative I would like to inquire as to the health of the leader of the third party (Mr. S. Smith) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Lewis) before we resume these proceedings. But I know they’re both very fit, and I should alert them that in spite of what I read from time to time I have never felt better myself, and I say that for the members opposite and for some of my own colleagues as well.

Mr. Peterson: You look terrible. You look just terrible.

Hon. Mr. Davis: In fact my back doesn’t bother me today at all.

Mr. Cassidy: Is this the new Bill Davis?

Mr. Roy: I understand your tennis hasn’t improved at all.

Hon. Mr. Davis: My tennis has not improved, you’re quite right. I don’t spend as much time practising as some people I know.

Mr. Roy: That is obvious. You should.

PATRIATION OF THE CONSTITUTION

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to report to members briefly on the intergovernmental discussions which have taken place during the past several months on the patriation of the constitution and on federal-provincial financial arrangements.

I say “briefly” at this time, as later in this session an opportunity will be provided to debate these matters more extensively.

For the members’ information I am tabling the letter of October 15, 1976, from Premier Lougheed to Prime Minister Trudeau reporting on the results of the discussions among the Premiers on patriation and the Prime Minister’s reply of October 19.

Mr. MacDonald: Do you agree with the letter?

The position of Ontario throughout these discussions has been straightforward. Ontario would like to see the constitution brought home and at the same time have incorporated in it the amending formula set out in the Canadian Constitutional Charter of June, 1971, the so-called Victoria formula.

Procedurally we would prefer these steps to be taken on the basis of a unanimous agreement of the federal and provincial governments. Substantively we attach no conditions to achieving this important result. However, a number of other governments have other requirements.

To see whether these could be accommodated in the general intergovernmental agreement on patriation, we have been prepared to consider additional constitutional items raised by other governments to the extent that any changes proposed do not weaken the fundamental interests of the country as a whole. To this end, and with a few modifications, Ontario is willing to endorse the draft proclamation proposed by Prime Minister Trudeau on March 31. Similarly, we accepted a number of proposals for constitutional change raised by some provinces in the recent discussions. Others we could not accept.

With regard to the amending formula, the interprovincial discussions revealed that seven provinces joined with Ontario in favour of the Victoria formula. Two provinces, however, have put forward separate alternatives. There are thus two sets of proposals now on the table: those put forward by the Prime Minister in the spring and those developed by the provinces over the summer. The next logical step is a meeting of first ministers to consider all of these proposals and to determine if the impasse over the amending formula can be overcome.

I look forward to these discussions with the hope that we will be able to achieve the patriation of the constitution in a manner that will be acceptable to all Canadians.

As it relates to financial matters, I am also hopeful that in the next few months we shall be able to reach intergovernmental agreement on the federal-provincial fiscal issues that are now before us. These issues include the major shared-cost programmes, the revenue guarantee and the equalization formula. I do not expect that we shall receive all the revenues to which we believe we are legitimately entitled. However, recent meetings of the provincial Ministers of Finance and Treasurers and informal indications from the federal government indicate that the basis for a compromise is slowly being established.

I am optimistic that the next round of federal-provincial ministerial discussions will give us some indication of success.

FARM INCOME STABILIZATION PLAN

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, later this afternoon, I shall introduce The Farm Income Stabilization Act, 1976.

Mr. Reid: For a second time.

Hon. W. Newman: It will be recalled that before the summer recess this House turned back Bill 96 for the establishment of a farm income stabilization programme in Ontario.

Mr. Peterson: If it is no better, we will return it.

Hon. W. Newman: It called for the incorporation of new provisions in a bill to be reintroduced by the end of this month. Members will see that the government has complied fully. I am confident that this second version, which was drawn up after close consultation with Ontario’s agricultural community, will please the hon. members as well as the great majority of our agriculture producers in this province.

Interjection.

Hon. W. Newman: This time, however, I’d like to proceed a little more cautiously in explaining the Act’s provisions and the reasoning behind them.

Interjection.

Hon. W. Newman: You all learned your lesson last summer. Now you listen. With all respect, Mr. Speaker --

An hon. member: Caution always, Bill.

An hon. member: You learned yours.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister has the floor.

Hon. W. Newman: With all respect, Mr. Speaker, it became obvious in the original debate that some members had failed to grasp a few basic points about the whole concept of stabilization.

Mr. S. Smith: You have got a new speech writer anyway.

Hon. W. Newman: This is not said in any disparaging sense, I assure you. Maybe the fault was partly mine.

Mr. Cassidy: That is really new.

Hon. W. Newman: Agriculture has become a very complex subject and I may have assumed too much prior knowledge of developments that deserved fuller explanations.

Mr. Cassidy: That is the first admission of error in 33 years.

Hon. W. Newman: For the purposes of this legislation, farm income stabilization means putting a floor on farm income -- saying the prices that farmers get for their products can go only so low and no lower. I would like to emphasize, however, that it does not mean putting a ceiling on farm income -- saying that farm prices can only go so high and no higher. There have been some misunderstandings on this particular point.

Our stabilization programme will not interfere with the free operations of the marketplace. When the law of supply and demand provides a good price for a commodity, its producers will get the full benefit of that price; but when prices slump badly, there will be a safety net. The floor price will tide them over hard times and keep them in the business of growing our food until prices improve again.

Mr. S. Smith: What an interesting idea.

Hon. W. Newman: When the floor price is set at the proper level, there will be no interference in production decisions which should be up to the farmers alone.

It should also be noted that since this will be done within the free market system, we’ll retain its built-in incentives for efficient production, for orderly marketing, and for fitting the supply of farm products to the demand for them. This means consumers should continue getting better buys in food compared with their earning power than can be found anywhere outside North America.

Let us deal for a moment with the risks we seek to help farmers insure themselves against.

[2:15]

Mr. Conway: Don’t choke.

Hon. W. Newman: For convenience we can group the risks in two categories. First, there are the physical risks of farm production and storage -- things like had weather, disease, pests. Then there are price risks. These include unpredictable changes, both in the prices the farmer gets for his product and the prices he must pay for necessities such as fertilizer, feed and machinery.

The government of Ontario has done a great deal to reduce farm production risks. To cite one example in one area --

Mr. Cassidy: The government took the land out of production, sure.

Hon. W. Newman: -- listen you -- agricultural research has brought the development of high-yielding, disease-resistant varieties of grain. We haven’t done much about the weather, I confess, but we have done a great deal to control its effects.

Examples of government-producer ventures that come to mind instantly are programmes to improve field drainage and, more recently, crop insurance.

Every year more Ontario farmers take advantage of insurance that protects them from financial losses through crop failures caused by the weather. The federal government pays half the premium, the farmers pay the other half and the government of Ontario pays all costs of administering the programme.

Mr. Nixon: Order. What is this, a speech?

Hon. W. Newman: I just want to make sure you understand it this time and that’s why I’m taking my time.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. You’re aware, surely, that the matter the hon. minister is talking about has been debated in this House long before he was even a member and established here by the law and the action of the Legislature. Why are we spending time, in the ministerial statement period, for him to rehash that old stuff?

Mr. Speaker: I’m sure the hon. member knows that the purpose of ministerial statements is to make a full and complete statement of a policy. I remember many occasions when this has been demanded by all members of the House and this is exactly what is being done. The minister will continue.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, as I said at the opening of my statement, I want everyone to fully understand it this time.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister has the floor.

Mr. Sargent: Tell him to start over again.

Hon. W. Newman: Even when production risks are reduced, farmers must face price risks. It is an irony of farming, in fact, that the success of producers can actually cause their income to decline. All of us reap the rewards of our farmers’ production success in the form of abundant, top-quality, reasonably priced food. Consumers have implicitly recognized this by supporting the spending of millions in government money for agricultural research and development programmes. Having reduced the production risks, it’s a natural progression to reduce the worst effects of price risks. There are several ways of doing this.

Through The Farm Products Marketing Act, for instance, the government of Ontario has provided a mechanism for farmers to establish marketing boards for their products and reduce fluctuations in prices. But they are still extremely vulnerable to international events and decisions. Most commodities marketed in Ontario are actually part of a world market, even though the bulk of the province’s agricultural production is oriented toward domestic consumption rather than foreign trade. Commodities must compete on the world market --

Mr. Conway: Did Bill Stewart write this?

Mr. Nixon: This is a second-reading speech.

Hon. W. Newman: -- at prices determined by the intricate laws of supply and demand. Our farmers, no matter how united, could never guard themselves adequately from unfavourable price changes affecting both their input and their output -- the prices they must pay to produce and the prices they receive for producing.

While we have many ways of improving agriculture’s viability, it is in this area that income stabilization programmes can be most effective. They won’t interfere with these other programmes; indeed, they should be considered in conjunction with the other programmes for a better understanding of the agricultural economy.

Just as there are many forms of risk protection, there are many forms that farm income stabilization plans might take. The federal plan enacted as Bill C-50 last year distinguishes between commodities that are “named” in the Act and thereby guaranteed a support price, and commodities that may be “designated” for temporary inclusion from time to time. The “named” products are cattle, sheep, hogs, industrial milk and cream, corn, soya beans, and oats and barley not included in the provisions of the Canadian Wheat Board.

As market prices worked out, federal payments were made only for fed cattle last year, and then only from January to August. There were also industrial milk payments, but they’re administered differently under a different Act.

The federal plan covers all Canadian producers of the commodities to which it applies. The farmers don’t contribute to the plan. The support price is 90 per cent of the average market price for the commodity over the previous five years, plus an adjustment for increases in production costs. This adjustment is calculated on the current “cash cost” -- which is defined as normal out-of-pocket expenses incurred in production minus the average cash cost over the previous five years. Cash costs, incidentally, do not include depreciation on buildings and equipment.

I might digress for a moment to clear up possible confusion about two related phrases commonly used in federal-provincial talks. One is “operating costs.” These costs do include depreciation allowances as well as cash costs. The other phrase is “full cash costs of production.” This is taken to mean cash costs, plus depreciation, plus all other overhead costs associated with the production process.

The government of Ontario has consistently argued that farm income stabilization is primarily a federal responsibility because, to be truly effective, it must be national in scope. We have pressed our arguments from that basis in almost four years of federal-provincial negotiations, and we’ll continue to do so.

Mr. Conway: Like everything else. Pass the buck.

Hon. W. Newman: As it stands, however, the federal plan obviously doesn’t offer nearly enough Ontario farmers the type of protection against price risks that I have been discussing.

That is the only reason we brought in Bill 96 earlier this year. It was an effort to provide coverage for our producers of this year’s farm commodities while we continued pressing Ottawa to play a far greater role in implementing a realistic, comprehensive programme.

Only the federal government has responsibility for international trade regulations. Support prices for any commodity cannot be divorced from international trade, and no provincial government has powers to set quotas or tariffs on foreign food imports.

Ontario controls one-third of Canada’s farm production, but we must rely on --

Mr. Nixon: Is it true you’re going to import grape concentrates?

Hon. W. Newman: -- Ottawa to keep our programmes from being eroded or erased by a flood of cheap imports. The current international controversy over offshore beef imports is a prime example, and a very painful one for all our beef producers in this country and this province.

Mr. Bullbrook: Offshore?

Mr. Nixon: Anybody offshore?

Hon. W. Newman: Our government has been urging a federal meat import law since early August. We face similar problems in exporting food products and we have to be sure our price support levels don’t conflict with international agreements and bring retaliation against our products by countries that buy our products.

We must also avoid the risk, the very genuine risk, of pitting province against province if several or all of them should establish independent varieties of farm income stabilization. The other provinces are aware of the dangers of destructive competition and price wars. They are in general agreement with our stand that the ideal plan would be a nationwide one that covers all commodities and encourages an efficient Canadian agriculture which would be competitive in the world marketplaces.

Mr. Conway: How much more of this?

Hon. W. Newman: Quite a bit.

Bill 96 was, therefore, designed to dovetail with the existing federal plan to avoid these dangers. At the same time, no further obstacles were placed in the way of extending and improving the federal programme.

Mr. Ferris: Is this a credit course?

Hon. W. Newman: To recapitulate very briefly, Bill 96 would have established a Crown commission to set floor prices at the same level as the federal plan. In emergencies the base level of support could be increased above 90 per cent of the five-year average of market prices, but only on a temporary basis.

It would have excluded commodities already named or designated in Ottawa’s Bill C-50; they wouldn’t need double protection. It would also have excluded commodities already regulated by Ontario marketing boards that set prices and allocate production quotas in line with market demand. Dairy products, poultry and eggs fall in this category.

An hon. member: Is this important?

Hon. W. Newman: Yes, I think it’s very important; maybe you don’t. We felt dairy producers already get consistently fair prices that would have made additional protection unnecessary. With these exceptions, Bill 96 would have applied to every single producer of every single farm commodity in Ontario -- farm products with a value of more than $600 million.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s not what the farmers tell us.

Hon. W. Newman: We knew we could afford that plan within the anti-inflationary restraints we have placed on government spending. We knew it would operate without providing incentives that would invite overproduction and in consequence, bureaucratic interference in farmers’ production decisions.

Mr. Cassidy: It’s an exercise in self-justification.

Hon. W. Newman: You know -- no, I won’t say it; you’ll learn someday, you’ll learn; just give you time.

Interjections.

Hon. W. Newman: We felt we were offering the best plan we could offer at the time; but the majority in this House disagreed.

Mr. Nixon: Now you’ve seen the light.

Hon. W. Newman: Permit me to recall the proceedings of June 15.

Mr. Ferris: Permission granted.

Hon. W. Newman: First, I moved for second reading of the bill. The hon. member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) moved a reasoned amendment:

“That Bill 96,

An Act respecting Farm Income Stabilization, be not now read a second time but be referred back to the government to have incorporated therein principles of a farm income insurance plan which would be open to the producers of all farm products on a voluntary basis with assurance that the government provide a public forum for full discussion with the farm community before reintroduction of the bill.”

Mr. Conway: Now about the telephone.

Hon. W. Newman: Later in the debate, the hon. member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) moved a subamendment as follows:

“That Bill 96,

An Act respecting Farm Income Stabilization, be not now read a second time but be referred back to the government to have incorporated therein principles of a farm income protection plan which will be open to all producers of all farm products on a voluntary and contributory basis, with the government negotiating with legally constituted farm spokesmen; and with assurance that the government provide a public forum for full discussion with the farm community before reintroduction of the bill; and that the bill be reintroduced no later than October 31, 1976.”

Mr. Nixon: Good amendment.

Mr. Breithaupt: Worked, too.

Hon. W. Newman: The subamendment was carried on division and the amendment as amended was carried on division, thus the bill did not move to second reading.

Mr. S. Smith: We wrote your education policy and your farm policy; what next?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, we’re still smarting on that one.

Mr. S. Smith: Do you want a few more?

Mr. Nixon: When are you going to get the smarts?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Let’s get on with the business of the House.

Hon. W. Newman: A committee of cabinet was subsequently formed to deal with the problems of reintroducing legislation by the specified date.

I invited Ontario’s farm products marketing boards and commodity groups to present their views to this committee of ministers. Twenty-four groups were represented at the meeting on August 3. More of them supported Bill 96 than opposed it. Several were noncommittal, usually because their producers would not be affected. The views expressed by the remainder could not be fairly summed up in terms of pro and con or black and white; rather they ranged through various shades of grey. At any rate, no consensus emerged from these discussions and subsequent written submissions.

Mr. Cunningham: Bill Stewart he is not.

Hon. W. Newman: On August 12 the same committee of ministers met with the three general farm organizations: the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Christian Farmers’ Federation and the Ontario District of the National Farmers’ Union. it.

An hon. member: They’re not supporting it.

Hon. W. Newman: The Ontario Federation of Agriculture favoured a plan covering all commodities and based on insurance principles with provisions for contributions from farmers and the federal and provincial governments. The OFA also called for a clearly defined role for farmer representatives in the development process. The Christian Farmers’ Federation found Bill 96 sufficient and adequate. It suggested a few modifications, but supported the plan.

Mr. Conway: Just a few?

Hon. W. Newman: The National Farmers’ Union filed a national policy statement that had been adopted in December, 1975. It dismissed Ottawa’s Bill C-50 as irrelevant. It asked for a stabilization plan based on current production costs and a formula indexing all major cost components. The NFU also called for federal-provincial-producer contributions to a fund that would operate in conjunction with quotas, import controls and other facets of supply management.

Mr. Conway: This sounds pretty irrelevant.

Hon. W. Newman: While we had thus consulted in depth with the legally constituted farm spokesmen, I wanted to give individual farmers additional opportunities to express their views at public forums. Public meetings were arranged and well-advertised in 10 centres across the province.

Mr. Conway: By telephone.

Hon. W. Newman: I was able to answer some of the questions that arose at these meetings on the evening of October 4 --

Mr. Conway: Not too many.

Hon. W. Newman: -- by means of a telephone conference-call hooked up to loud --

Mr. Nixon: The taxpayers pay --

Mr. Cassidy: Must have been a long hook-up too.

Hon. W. Newman: In addition my ministry-- I’ll tell you they were well-attended meetings by and large, and I’m sorry two meetings couldn’t hear me very well.

Mr. Roy: Bill, I’ll tell you something else, you were better on the phone.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Would the hon. minister continue with his statement.

[2:30]

Hon. W. Newman: Certain key points became evident at these public meetings. The majority of farmers wanted greater producer participation and heavy farm representation on the stabilization commission. They wanted a voluntary, contributory form of stabilization to which farmers wishing protection would pay premiums to enrol their commodities; and they wanted the level of support prices to reflect realistically what was happening in the marketplace so that they couldn’t have a detrimental effect on the competitive position of Ontario’s agricultural products.

Mr. Bullbrook: I thought you said we weren’t having a Throne Speech this time?

Mr. Singer: It is another statement of government policy.

Hon. W. Newman: With the aid of all this input from farmers and farm groups, the government was able to evaluate several alternative types of farm income stabilization plans which would comply with the stated wishes of this House. Each was weighed with painstaking care before we chose the plan embodied in the bill that will be tabled in a few minutes.

Mr. Singer: The speech writers were on strike -- you had to put them to work sometime.

Hon. W. Newman: These are what I consider the highlights of the bill:

“It will be a voluntary, contributory plan run by a Crown commission of at least five members, predominantly representatives of Ontario’s producers.”

Mr. Conway: Resign.

Mr. Peterson: Did you just think of this?

Mr. Singer: It was in the paper last week.

Hon. W. Newman: All marketed agricultural products in this province will be eligible for coverage.

The commission will establish regulations for enrolling any serious producer as it sets up separate stabilization funds for various commodities. The government of Ontario will contribute $2 for every $1 the producer pays in enrolment premiums.

Prices and costs used in the Ontario formula will be the same as those used in the federal plan, and federal officials have assured us of their full co-operation in supplying any necessary technical data. I have explained why our plan must dovetail with theirs but let me stress once again that the government will continue to press for the type of meaningful, national stabilization programme which all parties in this House want to see.

Mr. Peterson: You could have spared us all this.

Mr. Conway: Where is Don Morrow?

Mr. Roy: I hope we get a copy of that speech.

Hon. W. Newman: The provincial plan will provide two forms of protection. When a commodity is named in the federal Act for support at the 90 per cent level, as I discussed earlier, our payments will boost returns to Ontario producers to the 95 per cent level.

Mr. Cunningham: Now if you only knew something about farming.

Hon. W. Newman: The Ontario stabilization price will be 95 per cent of the average market price over the previous five years adjusted for cash cost increases. The federal Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Whelan, has said that any other commodities which need support on a yearly basis will be designated under the federal Act for the same 90 per cent level of support. In these cases, Ontario payments will also be at 95 per cent. However, if a commodity is not covered either way by the federal Act in a year of low market prices, the Ontario plan will provide a payment equal to the difference between the 95 per cent level and the 90 per cent level.

What agriculture really needs, of course, is uniform support of every Canadian farm product at the 90 per cent level plus a three-way partnership to provide additional protection to the 95 per cent level for any farmer who wants to help fund it. The federal government should be sharing the costs of the voluntary portion on a dollar-for-dollar basis with the province and participating producers. We’ve been telling Ottawa that for years but we can’t wait any longer so we’ll put in Ottawa’s dollar to get the programme moving.

Mr. Cassidy: You weren’t going to do that this spring.

Hon. W. Newman: As you will see, Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to predict what our plan will cost in any given year. The maximum cost to the government might range from $60 to $70 million annually. On the basis of the two-for-one cost-sharing formula, the maximum cost to contributing farmers would be half as much.

Mr. Bullbrook: Give them a Wintario grant.

Hon. W. Newman: The provincial government introduced a voluntary contributory price support programme for our beef calf producers last year. It will continue to operate separately from the other stabilization funds until all cow-calf contracts expire in 1980. I certainly trust that a proper federal stabilization programme will be fully operational by then.

Mr. Conway: Did you talk to Joe Clark?

Hon. W. Newman: In the event it is not, the Ontario stabilization commission will decide what arrangements should be made for beef calf operators desiring continuing protection.

We intend to leave other operational decisions of a similar nature in the hands of the producer-oriented commission. As I have said, the minority of Ontario producers have indicated they want a greater voice in the decision-making. The new Act is designed to meet their wishes.

We have complied with the stated wishes of the majority of members. We have produced a voluntary participatory plan that operates through the market price mechanism but takes account of significant changes in the farmer’s cash costs.

Mr. Breaugh: Anything more than two syllables.

Mr. Cassidy: It is a hard word to get out, isn’t it?

Hon. W. Newman: We have left the farmer free to make his own production decisions and we have avoided the risk of balkanizing Canada’s agricultural economy by retaining provisions that are compatible with the existing national stabilization programme while we continue working for a better one.

I am confident that members will agree that we have taken a major step forward in providing the greater degree of income security that Ontario farmers want within our free market, free enterprise system.

Mr. Lewis: It is a shocking intrusion into the marketplace -- a terrible violation of the free market system.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I believe the government has gone more than half-way and that the bill being introduced today is a tremendous protection for the farming citizens of Ontario.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Before we proceed with a lengthy list of statements, is it your intention, sir, to interpret the rules of the House in the way you have apparently already begun to do so by permitting major addresses by the ministers under the heading of ministerial statements? Obviously they are making second reading debate speeches in this connection; instead of indicating policy they are giving us the whole load.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is an important matter.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think the hon. member has a point there.

Hon. W. Newman: The members opposite didn’t understand it before so we thought we had better clear it up for them.

Mr. Speaker: I do recall on many occasions there has been a demand for further and complete explanation of whatever the ministerial statement might contain, whether it’s an explanation of an up-coming bill or a change in policy or whatever. I would caution the ministry to avoid debate, where possible, and stick to the principle of the bill or the announcement --

Mr. Breithaupt: He told us more than we wanted to know.

Mr. Speaker: -- which the ministry is attempting to make. I would request that in future the statements do not contain argumentative material or a justification for this and that and so on.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s the point; that’s the problem.

Mr. Bullbrook: It is supposed to be a concise statement; that’s what it is supposed to be.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think there was great merit to what the hon. member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk interjected.

Now, the hon. Minister of Labour.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a further point of order -- you have encouraged me to proceed on a second point of order. Since we are now resuming the session and it is expected we will be here for seven weeks or perhaps longer, is there something you could do with the --

Interjections.

Mr. Nixon: -- quality or the fidelity of the public address system? I’m not so sure that it is the same on all sides of the House but we found part of that lengthy statement to be almost incomprehensible.

Mr. Reid: And the other half was --

Hon. Mr. Handleman: You never did understand.

Mr. Speaker: I did detect a little bit of background noise occasionally, I must admit.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. To respond to that, however, the necessary corrections to our PA system were not completed during the summer because of the lack of certain parts and material, but I am assured that everything will be 100 per cent before we return here after the Christmas break. In the meantime, I think if we have fewer interjections while someone is talking we could all hear quite well. Thank you very much.

Would the hon. Minister of Labour continue with her statement, please?

ROYAL COMMISSION ON MINING SAFETY

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, members will recall that by order in council dated September 10, 1974, the government established a royal commission to investigate all matters related to the health and safety of workers in the mines of Ontario.

The commissioner appointed was Dr. James Ham, former dean of the faculty of engineering at the University of Toronto and now dean of that university’s school of graduate studies. I am pleased to report that he is in the Speaker’s gallery today.

Dr. Ham’s report was released on Aug. 23, 1976, and I am sure that all members of the House will agree that it deals with a difficult and complex subject with unparalleled thoroughness. In its analysis of the problems as well as in the recommendations for change, the report exhibits a sensitive and humane approach to the safety and well-being of persons engaged in an industry which is of vital importance to this province’s economy.

The commissioner has touched on every major health and safety aspect of the mining industry, including silicosis and dust hazards; lung cancer and ionizing radiation in uranium mines; toxic chemical agents; industrial noise and its effect upon hearing; the matter of health records; and, of course, important proposals concerning the structure of government programmes and the reordering of reporting responsibilities.

One hundred and seventeen specific recommendations were made to improve the capacity of employers, employees and government to achieve maximum protection for workers in this industry. We are indebted to Dr. Ham for the conscientious way in which he has approached this challenging task and for the wisdom which he has exhibited in fashioning his proposals.

Immediately following the publication of the report, a special committee of cabinet instructed senior officials of the affected ministries to undertake a detailed analysis of the Ham report, recommending implementation of those recommendations which were supported by the extensive and sometimes complex evidence relied upon by the commissioner. As I have mentioned, and as members know, the recommendations fall into two broad categories: first, those proposing administrative or organizational changes; and secondly, those of a substantive, operational character. The latter group involved complex technical and scientific considerations and I will return to those in a moment.

As to the administrative proposals, I am pleased to announce that the government accepts, without reservation, the commissioner’s recommendations that there be established immediately a single centralized occupational health and safety division within the Ministry of Labour.

At the appropriate time today, I shall introduce for first reading legislation which, among other things, transfers responsibility for

part IX and portions of

part XI of The Mining Act, as well as The Silicosis Act, to the Ministry of Labour. Administrative arrangements have already been made to transfer the occupational health protection branch of the Ministry of Health to the Ministry of Labour.

As members know, the Ministry of Labour is now responsible for The Industrial Safety Act and The Construction Safety Act. With the transfer proposed in the new legislation, responsibility for all occupational health and safety legislation will reside within the Ministry of Labour. The division will be headed by a person having the status of an assistant deputy minister, with whom my deputy minister and I will have close and continuing contact. That person appointed will have administrative responsibility for all of the statutes to which I have referred. I shall be announcing the name of the appointee at the earliest possible date.

The substantive proposals of the commissioner’s report are now under intensive review by a joint labour-management committee known as the Committee to Revise The Mining Act. Members will recall that this committee was appointed by order in council on March 24, 1976, and that its mandate was to conduct a complete review of

part IX and

part X of The Mining Act. The committee has been specifically requested to give priority consideration to the recommendations of the Ham report and to provide us with comprehensive proposals for amendment to those portions of The Mining Act dealing with health and safety, at the earliest possible date. I have been assured by the committee’s chairman that the review will be expedited and I hope to have its report before the conclusion of this session in order to be able to bring forward appropriate amendments early in the next session of the Legislature.

Depending upon the findings of the committee and upon the advice of the legal officers of the Crown, it is my hope to be able to combine the relevant sections of The Mining Act with The Industrial Safety Act and The Construction Safety Act, to create a comprehensive omnibus Act governing occupational health and safety in mines, in industrial establishments and in construction projects throughout the province. With the centralization of authority in a single ministry and with the enactment of a comprehensive statute, I am confident that we shall have a much greater capacity to deal with matters of health and safety in the work place than has been possible under the existing system.

I should add that the bill which I am introducing today will also deal with several substantive matters which were under active consideration well before the Ham commission reported. This bill permits the formation of labour-management safety committees or the appointment of employee safety representatives where appropriate. It deals with the employee’s right to refuse to perform unsafe work where reasonable grounds for refusal exist, and provides for relief against discharge or discrimination for the proper exercise of that right.

The bill provides for the posting in the work place of the reports and official directions of safety and health inspectors. It accords to an employee representative the right to accompany inspectors during the physical inspection of the work place, with the right of full consultation during the tour of inspection. Finally, the bill provides for employee access to annual summaries of work injury statistics.

Because of my responsibility for The Industrial Safety Act and The Construction Safety Act, it was my intention to introduce the aforementioned amendments to those two Acts. However, in the light of the Ham recommendations, I believe that similar benefits should be afforded to Ontario’s miners at this time.

All of the substantive proposals to which I have just referred are discussed in the Ham recommendations. Indeed, in some instances, the provisions of the bill are even more specific in providing protection and remedial rights to the employees than the recommendations contained in the report of the commissioner.

[2:45]

I hope members of the House will appreciate that I would have preferred to be in a position to have the entire task completed by the resumption of this session so that a fully developed omnibus bill could have been introduced immediately. That objective, however, has proven to be a practical impossibility. We have had the report for a relatively short period of time and in addition,

part IX of The Mining Act is an extremely complex and technical piece of legislation containing 452 sections, most of which deal with detailed matters of a scientific and technical nature. As the omnibus bill is developed, there are other provisions of the Industrial Safety Act and the Construction Safety Act which will require analysis as well.

It was simply not possible to complete this major undertaking for the resumption of this session. However, as I have said, the omnibus legislation will be brought forward as soon as it is humanly possible to do so, and I can say categorically that there is no other legislative initiative to which this government assigns higher priority.

During the debate on the bill I anticipate that members will have questions concerning other aspects of the consolidation of occupational health and safety programmes within the Ministry of Labour. I shall, of course, be happy to deal with any such matters, but I think it must be appreciated that some important administrative decisions will require careful assessment by the new head of the division of occupational health and safety. For example, there are important questions concerning the relationship of that division to the Institute of Occupational and Environmental Health and Safety to be established.

In addition, the respective roles of the Labour Safety Council and the Advisory Council on Occupational Health have yet to be determined. Everyone will acknowledge, I believe, that it is essential that the operating division have the benefit of continued advice through advisory mechanisms of some sort from both labour and management, and our task will be to provide the most efficient mechanism for receiving this advice without unnecessary duplication of either effort or resources.

Finally, I hope it is clear from this statement that the government is firmly committed to the two central themes of the commissioner’s report. First, the need for greater openness and greater employee participation in matters of health and safety, and, second, the development of a “responsibility system,” to use Dr. Ham’s phrase, to provide for a maximum of co-operation between labour and management in identifying, controlling and, where possible, eliminating occupational hazards.

In addition, the government is determined to provide the most effective external monitoring and evaluation system possible. From the conversations which I have had since the publication of the report, I am confident that both industry and labour share a commitment to these goals. This legislation, Mr. Speaker, is the first important step toward the achievement of these shared objectives.

FAMILY LAW REFORM

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, this government has for some time, as you know, been committed to a comprehensive reform of family law. We have recognized that the existing common and statute law has failed to keep pace with the challenge of modern family life.

One of my predecessors requested the Ontario Law Reform Commission to undertake a full review of family law and the commission has produced reports on marriage, lawsuits between family members, matrimonial property, children, family courts and, most recently, support obligations.

My ministry circulated a film and distributed a pamphlet on the commission’s recommendations across the province. In addition, we initiated public meetings in order to have as wide a discussion as possible of the issues in family law reform.

As an initial step, pending preparation of more comprehensive legislation, we introduced The Family Law Reform Act, 1975, which has been in force for over a year now. That Act declared the principle of equal status and capacity in law for spouses of both sexes and abolished many of the legal disabilities of married women. This year we introduced The Succession Law Reform Act as part of our continuing reform of family law. That bill, which has only received first reading, deals with the rights of family members in estate matters.

Now I take great pleasure in announcing to this House that the government will today be introducing a new, wide-ranging family law bill, which will be of fundamental importance to every man, woman and child in the province. This bill, to be entitled The Family Law Reform Act, 1976, sweeps away the ramshackle structures of the law governing matrimonial property and support obligations in a marriage breakdown situation. It creates, in their place, a completely new system of law dealing with the economic relations between husband and wife when their marital ties are about to be dissolved.

The bill contains new rights available to both spouses protecting the security of the family home and abolishes the ancient right of dower. It introduces the concept of marriage contracts to Ontario for the first time.

In short, the bill comprises a code of the economic relations between spouses and between parents and their children, a body of law which may be resorted to for protection if a family dispute develops but which also leaves the family free from interference by the law when its members are living in harmony, as the great majority of families do.

The bill comprises five parts, each dealing with distinct though related subject areas.

Part I deals with the division of family assets between the spouses where a marriage breakdown occurs.

Part II concerns the obligation of spouses to support each other and their children and of children to support their parents in accordance with the needs and the capacity of each party.

Part III provides rules for ensuring that the matrimonial home is not dealt with by one spouse so as to deprive the other or the children of a home.

Part IV introduces the concept of marriage contracts; and

part V effects consequential changes in the common and statute law.

There are several basic themes running through the whole bill. First, the bill recognizes the equality of the sexes. It confers no privileges and imposes no disability on either men or women as a group but rather takes account of the individual situation in each matrimonial dispute.

Second, it emphasizes the duty of individuals to take responsibility for themselves to the best of their capabilities and to aid the other members of their family who cannot fend for themselves.

Third, the legislation gives effect to the principle that family law should be flexible enough to respond to the particular needs of individual families and so permits spouses wide latitude in arranging their own rules for property, support and the raising of children.

Finally, the new provisions attempt to encourage the settlement of all the issues in a family controversy at once, so that multiple court proceedings will be unnecessary and so that any court hearing a property or support dispute will have a true and complete picture of the family situation.

I would like to outline briefly the main features of each part of the bill to illustrate to the members of this House the tremendous importance of its provisions.

Part I, family property, contains a new set of rules for the sharing of property between the spouses if a marriage breakdown occurs. The basic rule is that family assets will be divided equally between the spouses. Family assets comprise property owned by either or both spouses which they or their children ordinarily use for shelter or transportation, or for household, educational, recreational, social or aesthetic purposes. This kind of property, the things that a family use together as a family, would ordinarily be shared equally by the spouses on a marriage breakdown, regardless of who had bought the property and irrespective of which spouse held legal title.

Where the husband or wife could establish in an individual case that an equal division of the family assets was inequitable in all the circumstances, the court would have power to vary the shares of the spouses or even award a share of property that does not fall within the definition of family assets. This would allow recognition of the contributions of one spouse to a business owned by the other.

Again I emphasize that couples will be free to determine whether they wanted these new provisions to apply to them. If they did not, they would be permitted to draw up a marriage contract setting out their own rules for ownership of property.

Part II deals with support obligations and begins with the declaration that every spouse, husband or wife, has an obligation to provide support for himself or herself and for the other spouse, in accordance with need, to the extent that he or she is capable of so doing. This represents a substantial departure from the existing law, which imposes the obligation of support during marriage solely on husbands.

Part II also reiterates the obligation of parents to support their children, whether born within or outside marriage, and the obligation of children over 18 to support their parents; once again in accordance with the needs of each and their respective capabilities. It is perhaps little known that the existing law imposes an obligation on adult persons to support their needy parents. In this respect, the bill merely codifies the present law.

Mr. Cunningham: Is this the first reading?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: This part also creates a limited obligation of one common law spouse to support the other. Where two persons have lived together as if married, their relationship often takes on the same financial characteristics as a marriage. One person frequently becomes dependent on the other, especially if there is a child of the union. If one of these two people is no longer self-sufficient, it seems reasonable to look to the other to assist in restoring him or her to financial independence. Certainly it is more desirable to place a support obligation on common law spouses than to have a large number of persons who are living common law looking to public welfare for support instead.

Mr. Bullbrook: Jack Spence doesn’t like it at all.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: We believe it is in the community’s interest that some legal responsibilities flow from a common law relationship. By imposing a support obligation on common law spouses in the same terms as the obligation on married persons, we will be removing at least some financial advantages of a common law union over a legal marriage. Further, we do not propose to allow common law spouses to enter into contracts to limit their obligations,

whereas legally married persons will be able to do so in a marriage contract. These measures should act as an encouragement for common law spouses to regularize their situation by entering in a formal marriage where possible.

Mr. Conway: Have you even thought about the clergy?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: We propose to allow a common law spouse to claim support only after at least two years’ cohabitation, or if the couple live together in a relationship of some permanence and they have a child. We do not propose to give common law spouses rights to share in family property or have any control over dealings with the family home.

The third part of the bill deals with the matrimonial home, This part provides security for the members of the family by requiring that both spouses join in any sale or mortgage of the matrimonial home. The family’s right to shelter is therefore protected against the unilateral act of either husband or wife. Provision is also made for either spouse to obtain an order for exclusive possession of the home and its contents, where financial support alone would be inadequate.

Part IV permits spouses to enter into comprehensive marriage contracts covering their respective rights to property, support, custody and education of children and any other matters arising during their marriage or on an eventual marriage breakdown. A marriage contract could prevail over any of the provisions of the Act except where it limited a spouse’s rights in the matrimonial home, reduced a spouse to dependence on welfare or included provisions contrary to the best interests of the children of the marriage.

The last part of the bill contains many amendments to statute law and abrogations of the common law consequential upon the previous four parts. The Family Law Reform Act of 1975 is incorporated as part of this Act.

Part V abolishes the last vestiges of the inferior status in law of the married woman and completes the work begun in this area in The Family Reform Act, 1975.

This bill is obviously a major piece of legislation of fundamental concern to everyone. As a result, my ministry has prepared a pamphlet and an information booklet explaining the bill, and these documents will be distributed free, and as widely as possible across Ontario.

[3:00]

Mr. Roy: Have you got your name on it?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Members of the public will be invited to write my ministry for copies and to submit their comments on the bill.

Mr. Nixon: Just write to Roy.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I want to make it clear that --

An hon. member: Darcy is sending one out too.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I want to make it clear that this bill does represent government policy --

Hon. Mr. Davis: I could be unkind and ask who over there is smarting?

Mr. Nixon: Is it regional government for Chatham-Kent?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister has the floor.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: This bill does represent government policy, although in a bill which sweeps away centuries of legal tradition and provides entirely new measures in their place there may, of course, be a need for some adjustments. I am confident, however, that the basic principles of The Family Law Reform Act, 1976, represent a positive response to the needs of the people of Ontario.

While the family law reform bill is in itself very significant legislation, Mr. Speaker, it is only one of two important bills I will be introducing today, and only one of four major family law measures which the government plans to bring forward this session.

The second bill which I will be introducing for first reading today is a new Marriage Act. This bill does not contain the same kind of sweeping changes as The Family Law Reform Act --

Mr. Conway: Was that written by John Smith?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: -- but it does give effect to many of the recommendations of the Ontario Law Reform Commission report on marriage.

Mr. Breithaupt: You found a new way?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: One of the main features of the marriage bill is the authorization of justices of the peace and other prescribed classes of persons to solemnize marriages, so that it will now be easier for couples to have a non-religious marriage ceremony if they so desire.

Mr. Bullbrook: Keep this up you will be doing away with the opening prayer.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The third major piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, on the government’s family law programme is Bill 85, The Succession Law Reform Act, which has now received first reading. That bill substantially reforms the rules of inheritance of property and the right of dependants to claim support from an estate. It incorporates many of the recommendations of the Ontario Law Reform Commission reports on children, support obligations and family property.

The Succession Law Reform Act contains provisions equalizing the treatment in estates matters of all children, whether born within or outside marriage, and equalizing the position of men and women in their inheritance rights and rights to support from the estate of a deceased spouse. The bill effects a general modernization of the law of estates to bring it more in tune with the values and expectations of today’s society.

We have received a number of comments and suggestions from lawyers and other members of the public in relation to Bill 85, and it is the government’s intention to incorporate some of the suggestions in the bill and to proceed to enactment.

The government has also been considering reforms in the procedures by which family law disputes are resolved in the courts. It is well recognized that existing court structures do not serve as well as they might in family law cases. Often spouses must start proceedings in different courts and go through two or more trials before all the issues in their dispute are finally laid to rest.

Mr. Roy: You are starting to listen a little bit.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The courts are geared to an adversary process and this approach tends to add bitterness to a difficult situation.

The family division of the provincial court, commonly known as the family court, has access to support services which can help families settle their difficulties without resorting to a trial. However, that court has no jurisdiction over many kinds of family law cases, such as divorce and property disputes. On the other hand, the Supreme and county courts, which have the necessary jurisdiction, simply do not have the support services.

We believe we have found a means to provide a family court that has the jurisdiction needed to deal with any kind of family law case and the necessary range of support services to assist spouses to come to a negotiated settlement of their problems wherever possible. I have reached an understanding with the federal Minister of Justice on the creation of a unified family court for a three-year developmental project in Hamilton. The court is called the unified family court because it unifies the exercise of family law jurisdiction in one court, instead of the four different courts that have jurisdiction now.

The court at Hamilton would make extensive use of conciliation and pre-trial procedures within the court and social service resources in the community to assist the parties in resolving their problems short of taking the case before a judge.

We are currently resolving the details of an agreement with the federal government, which is necessary under our constitution to give the court the necessary jurisdiction. We expect these matters to be finalized in the next several weeks, and we will then bring forward legislation to create the unified family court at Hamilton. If the three-year Hamilton project proves a success, as I believe it will, we hope to be able to extend the unified family court across Ontario.

I have spoken of four family law bills which the government plans for this session, but there still remains one extremely important area which I have not yet directly addressed, the law relating to children.

In our new family law reform bill, we propose to give all children the same rights to support from their parents, whether or not the child’s parents are married. Bill 85, on the law of succession, contains the same kind of provisions in relation to children’s rights of inheritance.

In addition, I am developing a proposal to abolish once and for all the status of illegitimacy for all purposes of Ontario law. I am also considering proposals for legal means of ascertaining the parentage of children born outside marriage; a procedure to appoint a guardian for one’s children by will; independent legal representation for children in family disputes; and guidelines for a court in making decisions on custody in accordance with the best interests of the child. I will be discussing those areas with my colleagues in the cabinet with a view to producing further legislation on these subjects.

I have gone into some detail in this statement because I want the members of this House and the public at large to be fully aware of the scope and importance of the government’s legislative plans in the area of family law. These measures abolish the last remnants of the married woman’s inferior status and guarantee to both spouses a fair share of matrimonial property if their marriage breaks down.

They provide for new support remedies which will recognize the obligation of both husband and wife to become self-sufficient if they can, and the right of either husband or wife to claim support from the other when in need. The security of the matrimonial home is protected by new measures for controls over dealings with it and for orders for exclusive possession of it.

This legislation is the culmination of years of work by successive Attorneys General, the Law Reform Commission and officials within my ministry. We believe that it is a comprehensive legislative recognition of the need for change in our law and that it responds to the wishes of the people of this province.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Solicitor General.

Mr. Cassidy: How long is it?

CITIZEN COMPLAINTS AGAINST POLICE

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I wish to comment briefly on my ministry’s plan for a new system for dealing with citizens’ complaints against police. Out of courtesy to those opposite and so they may know that I mean briefly, if they wish to keep track of my progress as I turn the pages, I have two pages.

We propose that a civilian authority be created to oversee the handling of these complaints and the consequential disciplining of police officers. It has been said, quite rightly, that the police should not be the final arbiters in their own cause. Complaints and discipline would be the special focus and special responsibility of this new authority. It would be independent of the police and would report to the Solicitor General. It would monitor the handling of less serious complaints by police and would be directly involved in the investigation and adjudication of the more serious complaints.

This authority would be a final court of appeal both for citizens who feel aggrieved and for police officers whose employment or employment status might be affected. This independent authority would have sufficient power and resources to ensure that justice is done to all parties.

We have extensively reviewed recent studies and reports on the subject and I might mention in particular those of Mr. Arthur Maloney, QC, His Honour Judge René Marin and the Hon. Mr. Justice Morand. The underlying philosophies contained in these reports are perhaps more striking in their similarities than they are in their differences. I might say that our proposed scheme draws extensively from these reports.

I feel that the system should apply to all municipal police forces and the Ontario Provincial Police, and I am therefore unable to adopt any one scheme in its totality. Furthermore, we want to establish a system which includes the best features of existing and proposed systems. The system will be flexible and capable of expansion as the need arises. Every attempt will be made to avoid unnecessary expense and the creation of unnecessary bureaucracies. At the same time I am determined that the system be made to work and will do everything in my power to see that it is equipped for this objective.

At the present time, I have just completed the first round of discussions with police associations, police governing bodies and other interested groups. I might add that these groups are giving us full co-operation and many useful suggestions. The points of view are many and varied and sometimes conflicting.

I do appreciate the need for action. In the words of one writer, we must venture into this field in a highly visible way and then let the experience, in action, decide whether the structure created is doing the job it was intended to do. The government’s approach has now been finalized and a second round of discussions centring on these proposals has now commenced. This consultation completed, we will be in a position to introduce the legislation before the end of this session.

WINE CONTENT

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I will be introducing The Wine Content Act, 1976, the purpose of which is to help the Ontario wine industry gain a greater share of Canadian and foreign wine markets.

This legislation marks a major change in our policy in that it will permit the limited use of foreign wine-making materials in Ontario wines. Grape growers and wineries have jointly accepted this change.

In recent years, the public taste has turned toward dry table wines rather than fortified dessert wines. This development in the market has demanded great adjustments from our wine industry. Grape growers have responded with new plantings of the varietal grapes capable of meeting the public demand.

Mr. Cunningham: You guys buy it at election time.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The government’s loan support for this programme has been welcomed by the growers. This transition is proving successful and the quality of Ontario wines has improved dramatically.

Mr. Nixon: As long as the federal government buys the surplus and you let the concentrate be imported.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Nonetheless, it is apparent that some importing of grapes and blending wines, not concentrates, may be necessary to sustain the transition and enable the industry to continue to meet public expectations.

As members are aware, the health of the Ontario wine industry is essential to the preservation of the unique tender fruit land of Niagara. If we are able to maintain healthy sales of wine, we can keep --

An hon. member: How many seats?

Mr. Warner: Talk to the Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes).

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- thousands of acres of valuable land in the Niagara Peninsula from conversion to non-agricultural use. About 54 per cent of the cultivated land in the peninsula is in grapes and 70 per cent of the crop goes into wine.

Mr. Nixon: Have you decided to stop that conversion of land?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Expanding the markets for domestic wines is therefore one of the most practical and inexpensive ways to preserve this land for future generations.

It is obviously necessary to maintain a careful balance between the use of imported materials to help wine sales and the market for Ontario grapes. To that end, the regulations will provide two important safeguards. First, the amount of imported materials will be limited to a fixed percentage of the total materials used. Secondly, the yield of wine per ton of grapes will be reduced so that more Ontario grapes must be purchased for every gallon of wine produced. The entire blending procedure covered by this legislation will be subject to review in five years’ time.

Probably the most meaningful future protection is the development of a set of wine standards to improve sales. The government will be working with the wineries and growers to establish these standards, hopefully for introduction in 1977.

I would also like to take this opportunity to announce another initiative taken by the government recently to assist Ontario’s grape growers and wineries. In the past two years, French producers have taken steps to enforce the terms of a 40-year-old treaty which subjects Canadian business to foreign laws. The treaty in question threatens the right of our wineries to use names like champagne, despite the fact --

Mr. Conway: Take it easy on the French.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- that all labels clearly show the Canadian origin of the beverage.

Last week, I sent a telegram to the Hon. Jean Chretien urging him to consider abrogating this treaty.

Mr. Nixon: Did you thank the federal government for buying all the grapes?

Mr. Conway: Easy does it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No other wine-making jurisdiction has had to accept such an insulting loss of sovereignty.

Mr. Nixon: You only buy the grapes in an election year.

Hon. W. Newman: Nonsense. We bought grapes this year. You don’t know anything about the Niagara Peninsula.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister has the floor only.

I have a second statement, Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet.

CORPORATIONS INFORMATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Later today I will be introducing for first reading a revised Corporations Information Act and complementary amendments to The Business Corporations Act and The Corporations Act. In this legislation we have attempted to ease the burden of both large and small corporations by eliminating the annual filing and the payment of a filing fee.

[3:15]

We are also taking steps to make it easier for consumers and small businessmen to take legal action against corporations they do business with. Instead of the annual return now required from each corporation carrying on business in Ontario, the new Act requires filing only when a change occurs in the information kept on file. The amendments provide for cancellation and dissolution for non-payment of taxes rather than for failure to file annual returns.

In the case of a non-share corporation, the amendments provide for cancellation and dissolution for failure to file a notice on demand. This demand will be made every three years with a view to removing inactive corporations from the records.

The cost of enforcing the existing legislation has been climbing steadily. Under the new amendments, even when the $10 filing fee is dropped, the net administrative cost will be lower. However, up-to-date information on corporations will continue to be available in one central location.

I think everyone in this Legislature agrees that small businessmen have been deluged in recent years with too much government paperwork. While the federal government has talked about doing something to help, we are taking this practical action to help to improve the situation.

Mr. Samis: That’s what an election can do.

Mr. Roy: You should have saved all this for a spring election.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: With certain exceptions, every corporation carrying on business in Ontario will be required to file an initial notice setting out basically the information which is now required under the existing legislation. Returns now on file will be treated as the initial notice required by the amendments provided they are up to date.

By reciprocal arrangement, corporations chartered federally or in Quebec do not require a licence to carry on business in Ontario. These corporations will be required to file an initial notice setting out only information as to name, date, manner and jurisdiction of incorporation. Notices of change will still be required. Names and addresses of officers and directors of Canadian and Quebec corporations are available to creditors and others in the files maintained by the Canada corporations branch at Ottawa or by the Quebec companies branch in Quebec City.

The amendments will also require an extra-provincial corporation to file an initial notice as well as notices of change containing the name and address of its attorney in Ontario, the name and office address of its thief officer or manager in Ontario, and the location of its principal office in this province.

Under the existing legislation, a corporation is prohibited from carrying on business or identifying itself by other than the registered name or style. This rule will be strengthened in the new legislation by further disclosure requirements. A corporation will henceforth use its corporate name in all contracts, invoices, negotiable instruments and orders for goods or services. To permit corporations time to use existing stocks of stationery this provision will not come into force until July 1, 1977.

In the process of developing this legislation we received very valuable advice from representatives of the commercial, consumer and corporate law

section of the Ontario branch of the Canadian Bar Association and I would like to acknowledge that contribution with thanks. These amendments will provide better service to the public at consistently less cost both to the taxpayer and to Ontario’s small businessman.

Mr. Speaker: Just before we call for the next statement perhaps we might have the TV lights turned down; the cameras seem to have gone their way. Secondly, there’s a great --

Mr. Nixon: Arthur, you are not going to be on TV tonight.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. There is a great difficulty in hearing everything that’s said and that’s part of our cause right there. The difficulty is mainly because of the interjections, most of which are totally irrelevant. Also, please, will those people who are carrying on private conversations please keep them at as low a level as possible.

Mr. Roy: Can we have a coffee break?

Mr. Deans: On a point of order, if I may. I wonder if it might be possible to turn the volume on the microphones down, and whether that would interfere with the transcribing of it in the transcription room. If the tape still works from the lower volume we could probably hear people much more readily in their normal speaking voice.

Mr. Speaker: It is worth a try, but it seems to me the background noise appears to be the main difficulty; it echoes.

Mr. Singer: Did they throw out the old system? Could we not bring that one back?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Revenue.

Mr. Roy: Art, just file it.

HOME BUYER GRANT AUDIT

Hon. Mr. Meen: Back in July I issued a statement to the press concerning the audit of Ontario home buyer grant applications. I said at that time that audit statistics would be released at the completion of the programme, scheduled for the end of this year. In light of recent articles in the press, I think it would now be useful to provide an interim report on the progress to date of the home buyer grant audit.

Mr. Cassidy: It sure would.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Meen: As members will recall the home buyer grant programme was one of a number of measures introduced in the provincial budget in April, 1975, to counteract weakness in the Ontario economy.

Mr. Ruston: During an election year.

Mr. Nixon: To buy votes.

Mr. S. Smith: It is called a pre-restraint programme.

Hon. Mr. Meen: It was a short-term measure intended to have immediate economic impact and, therefore, our primary objective was to establish the administrative machinery to ensure payments of the grants as quickly as possible with minimum red tape. To verify by external audit or field audit every aspect of every grant application prior to payments being made would clearly have nullified the economic impact of the programme and caused unnecessary delays and hardship to the great majority of people who were properly qualified.

Mr. S. Smith: Delayed it past election day.

Mr. Nixon: Right. You wanted to get the cheques out before election day.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Further, statistics prove that in any kind of programme, whether it is a tax collection programme or an income redistribution programme --

Mr. Sargent: It was a bribery programme.

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- the vast majority of applications -- and I emphasize this Mr. Speaker -- the vast majority of applications for assistance and tax returns are basically correct. Programmes are therefore designed to provide the least amount of inconvenience to the persons submitting that majority of applications and reliance is placed on auditing techniques to deal with the exceptions rather than subject every grant application and tax return to the same degree of detailed scrutiny.

To deal with the home buyers’ grant programme, a three-step plan was used which, in the first instance, was based on a self-assessment approach common to many government programmes. The first step involved scrutiny of submitted declarations and documents. Grants were paid primarily on the basis of people’s declarations that they met the necessary conditions cited on the application forms, supported by certain documentary evidence.

The second step was the request for additional documentation or information in cases where our initial scrutiny indicated insufficient information had been supplied to determine the eligibility of the application.

In the course of the first two steps, approximately six per cent of all applications were rejected.

The third step was an audit based on a predetermined selection of files where it was judged that the highest number of ineligible applicants would be found.

This post-audit of grant applications began in earnest in April of this year with 46 auditors seconded from corporation tax and retail sales tax branches of my ministry. To October 22 of this year 9,453 files had been audited and of these, 1,016 grants, that is 10.7 per cent of those audited were disallowed.

Mr. Sargent: That was a great make-work programme wasn’t it -- 46 auditors?

Hon. Mr. Meen: This percentage is higher than it would have been had our audit been based on a random sampling of all applicants.

Mr. Sargent: You should be ashamed of yourself.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Since, as described earlier, it is not necessary to audit all 87,000 approved applications, and since by the end of this year the auditors seconded to this programme will have to return to their normal duties, the audit was concentrated on areas where we anticipated the highest number of ineligible applications and hence the highest rate of return, with particular emphasis on higher-priced homes. In that portion of the audit sample selected randomly, disqualifications were considerably lower than in other areas of specialized selection on which audit activity has been concentrated.

Mr. S. Smith: What was the rate?

Hon. Mr. Meen: The greatest single reason for post-audit disallowance of grants has been the applicant’s previous ownership of a principal residence, In fact, 72 per cent of disallowances fall into this category. Other significant categories include housing units found to be tri-plexes, four-plexes, and housing units not occupied as the applicant’s principal residence. These categories account for 12 and nine per cent respectively of post-audit disallowances.

As to the procedures used in our audits, the report in last Wednesday’s Globe and Mail indicated that investigators are appearing unannounced at doorsteps across the province. I would simply like to point out that it is impossible to estimate the length of interview which may be required with any particular applicant and, therefore, it is difficult to

schedule a series of such interviews ahead of time.

Mr. Sargent: Can you tell us the cost?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Were we to attempt to make advance appointments in all cases, the audit would be slowed considerably.

As I indicated earlier, the audit of the initial $1,000 payments of the home buyer grants will continue until the end of this year --

Mr. Sargent: An $87 million bribe.

Mr. Cunningham: Do they pay interest?

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- and I will be releasing complete statistics at the conclusion of the audit. Mr. Speaker, while I’m on my feet, I have another short statement.

ASSESSMENT, GIFT TAX AMENDMENTS

Hon. Mr. Meen: Later this afternoon I shall be introducing The Assessment Amendment Act and shall propose amendments to The Ontario Gift Tax Act, 1972.

Mr. Conway: What about Willis Blair?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Meen: As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, in the 1976 Ontario budget the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) introduced 15 proposals to reform the property tax system of this province. Subsequently, the Property Tax Reform Commission, under the chairmanship of Mr. Willis Blair, was established to review these proposals and encourage public response concerning their implementation. The changes proposed in The Assessment Act, 1976, will delay for one year, until 1977, the return of assessments at full market value throughout Ontario.

Interjections.

Mr. Sargent: The election ploy.

Hon. Mr. Meen: This delay will preserve current levels of assessment and existing procedures under The Assessment Act for the year 1977.

Mr. Cassidy: This is the fifth time in a row.

Mr. Nixon: That is the third withdrawal.

Hon. Mr. Meen: This, of course, is the deferral in the assessment process which I’ve been talking about for months and all of the rest of you have known about it for months as well. This delay --

Mr. Conway: I bet Eddie Goodman had a few things to say.

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- will allow time for response to the report of the Blair commission expected later this year and for the preparation of legislation by my ministry based on the commission’s report and the public response to it. In addition, Mr. Speaker, I shall introduce The Gift Tax Amendment Act, 1976, No. 2, in which I shall propose a number of changes to The Gift Tax Act. In general, these are housekeeping amendments with little revenue implications for the province.

Three changes I shall propose in this amending bill arise out of the provisions of the proposed Succession Law Reform Act 1976, introduced by the Attorney General on May 11, 1976, as Bill 85. That Act was not concerned with taxation but with a more generous and equitable treatment of illegitimate children, common-law spouses, and various types of defendants and survivors. With some necessary modifications the relevant provisions of that Act are to be incorporated into The Gift Tax Act.

An additional change I shall propose will extend tax-free benefits gifted to a spouse to include the establishment of an inter vivos trust for his or her benefit. Through this amendment we hope to incorporate a change which was first put forward to my staff by a joint committee of the Canadian Bar Association and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario. Under the current Act, a gift to a spousal trust is subject to tax. This proposed amendment will permit us to extend the current interspousal exemption to include a gift to a spousal trust.

In order to qualify for this exemption, all of the income must belong to the spouse of the donor and anyone else benefitting from the trust must be alive at the time the gift is made to the trust for the spouse’s benefits to be exempt.

The third major proposal in the package of amendments to The Gift Tax Act concerns the collection of tax where the donor, who is primarily liable for the gift tax, does not pay and the liability then falls to the recipient of the gift. This proposed law would allow my ministry to file a lien upon property located in Toronto and owned by the non-resident recipient of such gift.

I believe the proposed amendments I’ve described today combine to demonstrate this government’s commitment to maintaining an effective and thoroughly useful dialogue with interested parties and, importantly, the people of Ontario, as we continue to implement property and other tax reforms.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister of Natural Resources.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister has been hiding, eh?

REED PAPER

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I shall be tabling later on this afternoon a memorandum of understanding signed today by myself of behalf of the government and on behalf of Reed Paper Limited, by Mr. R. W. Billingsley, president and chief executive officer and Mr. K. D. Greaves, group vice-president, forestry and wood products.

This understanding sets out a series of steps to be taken, both by the company and by the government, to investigate the desirability of proceeding with a proposed development of a new integrated forest industry complex in northwestern Ontario.

The understanding also guarantees full public disclosure of all data-gathering procedures and public hearings before any decision is taken by the government concerning the feasibility or the desirability of proceeding with any forest harvesting plan for the area under study.

This understanding established the framework within which studies will be undertaken of the forest resources of an area to the north and the east of Red Lake. In addition, It provides for a hearing by the Environmental Assessment Board and for public participation in northwestern Ontario. Today’s signing of this understanding follows, by 2½ years, a proposal made by the company to the government.

[3:30]

In that proposal, Reed Paper Limited indicated that it was prepared to consider the feasibility of developing an integrated forest complex in the Ear Falls-Red Lake area. This proposal, in turn, resulted from a request I made to all pulp and paper companies in Ontario to provide the government with their long range development programmes to achieve a fuller and more effective utilization of provincial forest resources.

Members will recall that in 1971 the government accepted the recommendations of the Design for Development Phase II report to be a policy objective for the social and the economic development of the northwest region of this province. This report made a number of recommendations on the role of the pulp and paper industry in this vast region. It recommended that some 4,000 to 5,000 new jobs be created by this industry by 1990. It also recommended better utilization of the forest resources by the harvesting of over-mature trees and all forest species to achieve a more balanced forest management programme.

It recommended that a study be made of the feasibility of establishing at least one new pulp and paper mill in northwestern Ontario, with priority being given to the areas of the northwest region where the forestry resource was under-utilized.

It recommended that particular attention should be given to the possibility of establishing an integrated forest products complex in what the report termed strategic B communities, such as those in the Red Lake area.

It is recommended that both the government and industry jointly develop special training programmes for the people living in remote areas to increase their opportunities for steady employment, both in the mechanized woods operations and in the mills.

Following the government’s acceptance of these recommendations, I asked each pulp and paper company to present the government with their proposals on how their operations might be expanded to reach these goals.

To date, two companies have embarked upon major expansion programmes totalling $358 million, and projecting almost 1,700 new jobs. The proposal from Reed Paper Limited projects an investment of $400 million and the creation of up to 1,200 new jobs. This proposal was announced in this Legislature by the Premier in March of 1974. Since then, the company has been engaged in its own technical study of a possible kraft mill in the Red Lake-Ear Falls area.

It is now appropriate to undertake an investigation into the forest resource of this part of northwestern Ontario lying north of the 51st parallel.

While other jurisdictions in Canada and many other countries have successfully carried on forest harvesting operations considerably north of this parallel, Ontario has not conducted an intensive forest inventory of this region or studied its possible economic values to the province. The time has now come to do this.

Together with my ministry’s emphasis on improved forest management and greater species utilization, there is also an obligation on my ministry to expand and improve its forest regeneration programmes. A further statement of our plans in this regard will be made when studies now under way have been completed and our requirements are more fully understood and assessed.

This understanding provides for the carrying out of a complete forest inventory of the area under study. The study should be completed within 18 months. It will be undertaken by the government and our costs are to be reimbursed by the company. In addition, the company will reimburse the government for its costs, related to the operating studies for that portion required for the company’s forest operating plan, if and when the company and the government agree that they should proceed.

The company will submit to the government and will be required to make available to the public, Within 60 days from the signing of this understanding, its environmental impact and site selection study for a possible mill in the Ear Falls-Red Lake area.

The company agrees to provide the government with its proposals for a comprehensive forest management plan, and an operating plan 12 months after the completion of the forest inventory. These reports will be made available to the public.

These studies and plans will be designed to: 1. Develop plans designed to optimize the utilization of the forest; 2. Raise the growth potential of the forest; 3. Improve the standard of forest protection; 4. Conform with the government’s plans for the economic development of northwestern Ontario; 5. Maintain or enhance the area’s fish and wildlife resources and its recreational potential; 6. Improve the employment opportunities for all local inhabitants placing particular emphasis on meeting the economic and social aspirations of the native people in that region.

The company has agreed to participate in a hearing of the Environmental Assessment Board of the Ministry of the Environment to determine, in a public manner, that a new pulp mill would be environmentally acceptable. The company will not be allowed to proceed to construct the integrated wood-using manufactories at any location until the Ministry of the Environment gives the necessary approvals.

Should the company and the government agree that the development of the complex is in the public interest and its social benefits are commensurate with its economic benefits to the public of this province, the company has agreed to provide the government with an Irrevocable and valid letter of credit in the amount of $500,000 as a guarantee that the company will fulfil its various obligations.

Mr. Lewis: You said that in March, 1974. You still haven’t got the money.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: This memorandum of understanding provides a comprehensive framework --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Really, I am surprised.

Mr. Sargent: It’s a steal.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- to ensure that an exhaustive investigation of the forest resources of this area is undertaken and that any possible harvesting operation will conform --

Mr. Lewis: We understand what’s going on.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- to the strictest possible environmental safeguards known to us.

Mr. Lewis: You are giving them the agreement to bankroll them.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, nonsense.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It is also the first time that a private company in this province has been asked and has agreed to participate in an Environmental Assessment Board hearing.

Mr. Conway: Anything on the Metro Zoo?

Hon. Mr. Davis: We thought it would be very appropriate for you to raise it.

Mr. Conway: You really are a zoo gang.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Show us the long right arm hanging from the limb.

Mr. Conway: Turn your coat around.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Withdraw your tail and sit down.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Will the hon. members for Renfrew North and Sault Ste. Marie conduct their private conversations outside the chamber?

Oral questions.

REED PAPER

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Natural Resources: Is he prepared to table in the Legislature this week all the documents which he received over the last several months, which were never shared with the public, relating to the Reed Paper expansion -- the documents on the environmental studies, the documents dealing with native peoples’ rights, the documents dealing with statistical analysis of the economic implications? Is the government prepared to table those documents or must we wait until they are doctored by Reed?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know what the member is referring to because we have not, in the Ministry of Natural Resources, in my office, received any official impact studies or reports to which he is referring.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of the Environment? Will the Minister of the Environment table in the Legislature --

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order --

Mr. Lewis: I’m sorry.

Mr. Nixon: I have a supplementary on the question that was put forward. With reference to the minister’s statement on documents pertaining to the negotiations with Reed, did the minister indicate that there would be no public hearings held out of northwestern Ontario in this connection?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I said that the Environmental Assessment Board hearings would be held in Red Lake, Ear Falls and Dryden; that is in northwestern Ontario.

Mr. Nixon: A supplementary: Does that preclude hearings in Toronto or other jurisdictions across the province, pertaining to these resources which are held in trust by all the citizens?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, that would be a decision of the Environmental Assessment Board.

Mr. Nixon: The minister has no objection?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No.

Mr. Reid: A supplementary: Do I understand the Premier’s statement of March, 1974, correctly, that if Reed did not begin construction by December, 1976, it would forfeit the $500,000 bond it posted?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, if one reads the statement correctly, there was an agreement to be reached. That agreement was never reached and the bond was never posted. Until this memorandum of understanding and all the various sequences of events had been clearly outlined --

Mr. Reid: The bond was never posted?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, it was not.

Hon. Mr. Davis: There’s been no agreement.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: There’s been no agreement to post a bond.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s what you people don’t understand.

Mr. Lewis: No.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We’ve got the structure in place now whereby the timetable is set and if all the various steps are taken and the timetable is reached, the deposit will be made to the government.

Mr. Foulds: In view of the fact that in the minister’s statement he tied the agreement so closely to Design for Development for northwestern Ontario, does he not think it appropriate that at least a hearing be held in every town of major size in northwestern Ontario, from Manitouwadge to the Manitoba border?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, as I said to the member for Brant, that would be a decision of the Environmental Assessment Board. Certainly I have no objections to them holding public meetings in any part of this province where there is an interest and is a concern.

Mr. Lewis: A question to the Minister of the Environment: Is the minister prepared to table in the Legislature this week all of the documents relating to the Reed Paper proposal which came to his ministry and “other involved ministries” -- I would have thought Natural Resources, perhaps not -- revealed in the various memoranda which have come to light, among staff members of his ministry, involving the environmental assessment, the native peoples’ assessment, the statistical data, the economic implications? Why cannot that now be made public as part of this discussion?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the environmental assessment conducted by the company, that report was turned over to my ministry for assessment by my ministry officials for a period of time, and during that period there were some inter-office memoranda exchanged and also discussions with officials of the company, people involved in the assessment for the company, and other ministries.

I haven’t had a chance to look at any of those papers or any of the memoranda, nor have I had an opportunity to discuss them with any officials of my ministry.

Mr. Lewis: It’s only 16 million acres; no reason why you should be concerned.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I realize that. But these are all very preliminary assessments as a result of receiving assessments from the company’s agents, the people who did the assessments for them. That assessment wasn’t complete, as the hon. member probably knows, and that is one of the reasons --

Mr. Lewis: No, I don’t.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- why the company asked for it back. The assessment wasn’t complete in their opinion.

Mr. Reid: Why did they give them to you in the first place?

Mr. Lewis: Where are the documents?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: As far as the environmental assessment is concerned, it is with the company. That document is with the company, not with my ministry.

Mr. Foulds: You didn’t make a copy when you had it?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Allow the minister an opportunity to answer the question that was asked and asked legitimately.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: As the hon. member knows, some of these memoranda were, as reported in the press recently in articles, exchanged between officials within a department of my ministry. I would like to be able to look at that file to see just what is appropriate to be tabled in this Legislature.

Mr. Lewis: Appropriate?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes.

Mr. Lewis: I want to pursue this. Why is it not possible for the minister to share with the public of Ontario, now that the government has signed a formal agreement with Reed, as he tables the agreement, all of the studies and data which have come to his attention and about which his staff has written fully one to the other and claimed “other involved ministries have reviewed it as well”? Which other ministries? Where’s the material?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: As I say, Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to tabling relevant material in respect to the assessment done for Reed Paper by, I believe, Acres Limited. But I think the hon. member can appreciate that apparently a file of an official of my ministry was copied in some way, including a lot of inter-office memos, some of it illegible, and types of material of that kind. I want to make sure that anything I table here is relevant and appropriate to the particular proposal being submitted by Reed.

Mr. Cassidy: And you’ll make that decision?

Mr. Reid: Can the minister tell us today, or tell us tomorrow, or Thursday, what other relevant ministries in fact received the information? Would it be the Ministry of Natural Resources, or Health, or who? Will he give us that information? Who else received the report?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I’m not sure exactly what other ministries may have received it from the company or from other ministries. Certainly I would be happy to table anything which passed between my ministry and some other ministry that may relate to this subject.

Mr. Lewis: You sign agreements but you don’t know what you’ve got.

[3:45]

Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. Is the Minister of Natural Resources not concerned about entering into this kind of agreement with the Reed Paper Company when he has such a damning condemnation of that company submitted by his forest management officer, Mr. J. R. Cary as recently as September, 1976, pointing out that the regeneration is running at less than half the level it should be and indicating that the cutting and high-grading practices are no part of any forest management system to his knowledge? How can the minister enter an agreement with a company with that record?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition should realize this is a memorandum of understanding. It sets up the framework in which all the various steps and timetables have been spelled out for public participation. Let’s make that point clear.

With regard to an individual’s comment with regard to the reforestation practices, I think the member is aware that since 1962 the Ministry of Natural Resources has been responsible in taking the lead in regeneration and management practices.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: If there is a criticism it has to come right back to the way we are approving those particular plans. I will indicate to members, in the course of my estimates, which start tonight, that we will be reviewing many of the actions which have been taken, and these plans.

Mr. Conway: But you are responsible.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: While it may be one individual’s opinion within that particular field, we will certainly correct anything that has gone on, and with other companies, too.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary: Is the minister aware that there is a memorandum from M. D. Kirk, environmental planner in the Ministry of the Environment, to V. W.

Rudik, assistant director, environmental approvals branch, dated April 26, 1976, relating to a seminar on forest management and environment, April 20 to April 23, 1976, at which there were 15 private sector foresters and three Ministry of Natural Resources foresters in attendance, including Cary from Reed, in which they indicated everything from undue industry, administrative and political influence on the Ministry of Natural Resources, indicated that we may have a timber shortage in the province by the year 2000 and that regeneration was virtually non-existent?

How can the minister continue to grant to Reed a part of Ontario as large as the province of Nova Scotia with the record which his own people are chronicling? Why is he doing it?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I think the hon. Leader of the Opposition is ignoring my earlier comments and he just refuses to accept them. All kinds of people can make all kinds of comments. If there is any truth or depth to those particulars --

Mr. Lewis: They are your people; they are your memos.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- it’s certainly something I would like to look into. Certainly I am not aware of these practices to which the hon. member refers.

Mrs. Campbell: You should know.

Mr. Angus: I would ask the minister if, in his earlier comments, he or his ministry took the blame for high-grading within the Reed area? Is that what he said?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, we don’t, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Angus: Who does?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It was just an individual’s opinion, if it is high-graded or not. We have a forest management plan for every licensed area in the province of Ontario. The member may think it is high-grading. We think it is forest management.

Interjections.

GASOLINE PRICES IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Energy: Since the Isbister commission report has now been out for several months, is it possible for him to act on one tiny particle of it and begin to equalize gasoline prices in the north as in the south, which is so profoundly felt by those people?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I will be responding to the various reports of Isbister in a few weeks’ time here in the Legislature and the question of gasoline prices and differentials, not just between the north and the south but around the province, will be dealt with in that response. I might say that I note with great interest some of the comments made by the members, particularly that particular member, and I will have a great deal to say to challenge some of the assumptions they make which are misleading the people of the north.

Interjections.

REED PAPER

Mr. S. Smith: A brief question to the Minister of Natural Resources on the previous topic, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister satisfied that the environmental assessment hearings which he is reporting will take place in northwestern Ontario, will be sufficient to give proper consideration to the impact of the proposed Reed deal on the native peoples’ situation as well as on the whole matter of forestry generation in Ontario, and if he is not satisfied with that, can he assure us that a separate public inquiry into these matters will be considered by the minister?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, there is a real concern by this government with regard to the native peoples and --

Mrs. Campbell: When did that happen?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- this development, if and when it ever goes ahead, and certainly we will do everything in our power to make sure that their views are properly expressed and made known to the Environmental Hearing Board so that they in turn can make recommendations. I don’t think at this point in time though I would be committed to have a separate, public inquiry, because I think that this will be an all-encompassing one, held in different places in northwestern Ontario where they could provide that input.

Mr. S. Smith: I’ll leave that topic for now, Mr. Speaker.

RACIAL ATTACK

Mr. S. Smith: A question to the Attorney General, if I might. Has the Attorney General received a letter and petition dated October 9, from the Toronto East Indian community, complaining of a racial attack which allegedly occurred on September 30, on Weston Road, and can he explain if he has received this why it is that although the petition says, and I quote:

“The attackers were still visibly present when the police were there. Although they were identified to the police, no action was taken against the attackers.”

My understanding is that as of today no charges have been laid. Can he give some comment on this?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I have some recollection of a letter of that nature and upon receipt of the letter I requested the Metropolitan Toronto Police Department to give me a full report of the incident and I have yet to receive a reply.

Mr. S. Smith: Just by way of brief supplementary, I presume that the Attorney General will report to the House when he receives such a reply?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

PUBLIC HEALTH NURSES’ NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. S. Smith: A question to the Minister of Labour and this regards the public health nurses situation where, as she knows, Mr. Speaker, 29 of 37 units are still without a contract. Is she intending in fact to do something about this? And may I ask if this is part of the policy outlined in the Ministry of Health’s brochure called “Ontario’s Health Units Looking After You” where it says, “It’s been said when you walk through the door of a good health unit you’ll find nothing but empty desks.

An exaggeration of course, but one with a great deal of truth.” I’d say there’s a lot more truth nowadays than was intended. “A health unit doesn’t sit back and wait for trouble to happen.” Can she possibly explain to us what the government is planning to do in this regard?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I can’t explain the brochure which the hon. leader of the third party has just produced. I haven’t seen it.

We are in fact still discussing the problems with the executive group of the Ontario Nurses’ Association. We have had conversations and a great deal of communication from the various boards of health throughout the province. Each side to this dispute is of course intent upon presenting their point of view regarding the dispute and we are listening with a good deal of interest to both sides.

Mr. Mackenzie: It’s taking an awful long time.

Hon. B. Stephenson: It would seem to me that because of the fact that there has been the capability demonstrated by some boards of health and by some units of the public health nurses to achieve a settlement that in fact this should be a possibility throughout all of the negotiations at this time.

I understand that there is a campaign afoot by at least a group of the Ontario Nurses’ Association to persuade some individual to introduce a private member’s bill to ensure that --

Mr. Sargent: That would be a big help, wouldn’t it, eh? Would you support a private member’s bill?

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- the nurses in public health units will in fact be capable of achieving compulsory arbitration, for their specific membership within the health unit. This is a possibility, I would anticipate. However, the communications which I received from boards of health would lead me to believe that they are not entirely enamoured of that kind of concept, and I think we have to listen to both sides within this dispute.

Mr. Cassidy: How can they bargain when it is shut down?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Are you supporting compulsory arbitration, Mike?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Why don’t you ask Mike to arbitrate?

Mr. S. Smith: When the minister speaks of some particular person among the nurses, is she referring to the letter from the chief executive officer of the Ontario Nurses’ Association, Anne S. Gribben, in this regard? And is it in fact the intention then of the ministry to proceed with arbitration and to continue to deny this one possible remedy to the public health nurses whose work is so important in this province?

Mr. Lewis: Some remedy.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to deny any group any right at all. It would seem to me that the employers of the nurses also have a right to express their opinions --

Mr. Cunningham: Did they tell you they needed more money?

Mrs. Campbell: For how long?

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- about the move to compulsory arbitration which would in fact place the --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Cassidy advises compulsory arbitration.

Mr. Cassidy: The employees bargained in good faith.

Mr. S. Smith: Pay no attention to him.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I have difficulty in overcoming Mr. Motor Mouth -- pardon me -- across the way.

Mr. Reid: That lowers the level.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I apologize. In the heat of the moment, I allowed my thoughts to run away with me.

Mr. Conway: Is this your Kitchener speech?

Mr. Lewis: That’s the phrase for the week; you blurted it out.

Hon. B. Stephenson: This is a very difficult situation and there might possibly be a solution to it if we could persuade both parties to this to meet again together to discuss the possibility of going this route with the kind of mediation which we have provided for them. We have provided mediation services in many of the instances and in some of them have been successful in reaching an agreement. The agreement I gather is satisfactory to the Ontario Nurses’ Association in those instances in which in fact it has been achieved.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary question: Does the minister have any of her staff currently working on any of the disputes in an effort to find a solution? Is the minister satisfied that there has in fact been bargaining in good faith taking place, at least during the last three or four months of the dispute, since the dispute has been going on for some considerable period of time?

Mr. Bullbrook: About 18 months.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am completely satisfied that in several of the instances where senior members of my staff have been involved there has been bargaining in good faith.

Mr. Deans: Is it carrying on now?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Today, no; last week, yes.

Mr. Sargent: In view of the cutbacks in health by the minister and the great job these public health nurses do up our way and across the province, would the minister support a private member’s bill in this regard?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any cutbacks in health. To my knowledge, there have been increases right across the board in all areas. I am also aware of the fact that local boards of health do have another source of income if they wish to negotiate beyond specific guidelines, and in fact they might approach that source of income, which is their local taxpayers, to improve the financial situation. I would have to see the bill which is being proposed before I could agree to consider it seriously. I haven’t seen it.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of Labour, instead of driving the public health nurses, who are clearly now frantic and driven to extremity, advocating compulsory arbitration on one side to resolve it, why doesn’t she break through the collusion among the local units and the bad faith bargaining and insist -- even through her appointed representatives, if she has to, dissolve some of the health units in the process -- that they reach a contract? Why is she doing it to the nurses for 18 months?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I don’t appoint the public health units. How on earth could I dissolve them if I don’t have the authority to appoint them? The hon. Leader of the Opposition should know whereof he speaks.

Mr. Bullbrook: In view of the fact that the minister wants to know the wording of the statute, I would like to send a copy of the proposed legislation that I intend to submit for the consideration of the House at the appropriate time, but I want to ask a question supplementary to that submission.

Since this dispute has been going on now for approximately 18 months -- and recognizing totally the need for sincere collective bargaining and recognizing also that we don’t want to interfere with free collective bargaining -- in view of the fact that this government has always seen fit to impose arbitration when the public good is at stake, would the minister answer me in this context: After 18 months, doesn’t she think it’s time that we gave some justice to these public health people?

[4:00]

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I can only say, with all humility, that’s precisely what I have been attempting to do over the last eight months.

Interjections.

Mr. Sargent: Because they have no political clout, that is why.

MINE CLOSINGS

Mr. Ferrier: I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. I wonder if the minister is aware that Pamour Mines has announced the closing of the Hallnor and Aunor divisions to take place about the end of the year, adding another 100 men in the gold mines who will be out of work, to about 650 in the Timmins area? Is the minister prepared to announce some imminent action by the Ontario government to try to protect the jobs of the gold miners in this province since we don’t seem to be getting much result at the federal level?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I’m very pleased that the member for Cochrane South is most interested in the jobs of the people in northern Ontario. I wish his leader was equally concerned about the jobs in northwestern Ontario on the lakes and in the non-renewable resources.

Mr. Lewis: All the resource-based communities will collapse when you are through with them.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, this government took the leading role with respect to the problems facing the gold-mining communities in this province -- and indeed, Canada -- ahead of the federal government.

We made a passionate plea at the mine ministers’ conference in St. John’s, Newfoundland, asking the federal government, first, to approach the International Monetary Fund to put some form of moratorium on these gold auctions that it was approving and of which the federal government had a

part in the decision. We had other countries in the world asking for the same thing. We have not yet received any consideration from the federal government.

We also asked the federal government to look at some possibility of assisting those gold mines which may have to phase down over a short period of time.

Both of those requests are still before the federal government. It is studying them, to my information. I have taken it upon myself to meet with the gold committee, led by that very able mayor from Timmins, Leo del Villano, at which meeting the member was present.

Mr. Laughren: Spare us.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We reviewed the entire situation as it relates to the gold-mining communities, not only in this province but, indeed, Canada. They are serious; there’s no question about it. We will continue to press the federal government for some decision as it relates to the gold-mining industry because it has that responsibility. I can assure you this government will apply all its weight in that direction.

Mr. S. Smith: Has Joe Clark given you his position on that?

Mr. Ferrier: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Before it becomes even more critical than it already is, would the minister be prepared to make further representation at this time to the federal government to try to get some action out of them? If that fails, is there some action, such as was requested by the gold study committee last week for a loan, that the minister is considering and on which he will try to have some answer for us as soon as possible?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat that we will use all the weight of this government on the federal government to listen to our request --

Mr. Nixon: What are you going to do?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- because even the senior civil servants of that ministry indicated that our proposals were the soundest yet received from any province in