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

April 6, 1977

30th Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L007 - Wed 6 Apr 1977 / Mer 6 avr 1977

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

ROYAL COMMISSION ON PENSIONS

SHIPBUILDING

BASEBALL TICKETS

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

AUDIT LEGISLATION

ALUMINUM WIRING

FARM INCOME STABILIZATION COMMISSION

SPECIAL EDUCATION

PUBLIC HEALTH NURSES

BEER SALES AT SPORTS EVENTS

CANADIAN HISTORY

SPECIAL EDUCATION

HOUSING PROGRAMME

ABORTIONS

DRIVERS’ MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS

BILINGUAL COURT SERVICES

WIRETAPPING CHARGE

TOWNSEND TOWNSITE

LAND SPECULATION TAX EXEMPTION

COURT FACILITIES

LINCOLN PLACE NURSING HOME

TUBE TURNS STRIKE

BENEFITS RATES

FUEL RATES FOR FARMERS

TORONTO DOWNTOWN PLAN

WCB REHABILITATION PROGRAMME

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

AUDIT ACT

MEDICAL DATA BANK ACT

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, in response to a question which I raised yesterday, the Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson) made the following statement -- I’m quoting from the Instant Hansard:

I’m afraid that statement could create and has created a false impression. Let me quote to you, Mr. Speaker, the last paragraph of the four letters I wrote to Michael Starr on the issue which I had raised with the appropriate minister and I’ll let you judge the language.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. If it’s a point of personal privilege, as the hon. member announced, he may state his point of privilege but not debate it and not build up the information.

Mr. MacDonald: He is not debating.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest --

Mr. Speaker: He may state the point of privilege; and if he’s been misquoted and so on --

Mr. Martel: I’m not suggesting --

Mr. Speaker: -- it could be construed as a point of personal privilege, but otherwise we don’t debate it, except that he can raise the matter at the time as a point of order. But as a point of personal privilege --

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: -- if none of the privileges of the hon. member has been breached --

Mr. Martel: My privileges have been breached.

Mr. Speaker: Well now, a misinterpretation of what one says, or a difference of opinion as to what one says or reads, is not a point of personal privilege.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I’ve spoken --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. So he may state his point of privilege, not debate it.

Mr. Martel: I am not attempting to debate it, Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of respect. I simply stated what the minister in her statement indicated, that some of the language was intemperate or whatever. I’m just going to quote, very briefly, the last paragraph of each of the four letters involved in this issue. There are only four sentences, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Nixon: I’d certainly like to hear what he said.

Mr. Philip: I would too.

Mr. Martel: The first letter, on July 18, says, and I’m quoting the last sentence: “I think your position is intolerable. I would appreciate your comments.” The one on January 24, 1977: “Can you indicate to me whether or not there is really any intention on the part of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, through Dr. McCracken or yourself, to meet with the above-named people to discuss the problem of industrial deafness. Thank you.”

Mr. Nixon: “Thank you”?

Mr. Martel: On February 17, I wrote the following -- and these are addressed to Michael Starr: “Maybe you aren’t concerned about deafness in the Sudbury area, but I damn well am, and I want to know when this meeting will take place without further BS.” And the BS means Bette Stephenson.

Mr. Lewis: Now there’s an abuse of the language.

Mr. Martel: The last letter, Mr. Speaker, on March 3, 1977; the final paragraph: “It is for those reasons that I do not need a meeting to be briefed, but rather I need a meeting that will clearly propose action on this matter.”

Mr. Speaker, obviously the minister’s statement left the impression with the press that my language is intemperate, because the headlines say: “MPP’s Language Called Filthy.” I want to know where the filth is.

Mr. Lewis: Right.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The last

part is about the only point that could be construed as a point of privilege.

Mr. Lewis: Yet another Stephenson discrepancy.

Mr. Speaker: We do not build up a case in this case; I repeat again we simply state the point of privilege.

Mr. Nixon: I think we should hear from the minister on that.

Mr. Speaker: There’s nothing I can do about any misinterpretation.

Hon. B. Stephenson: On a point of personal privilege, I did not write the headline in the newspaper.

Mr. Deans: No, you made the statement. Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Such matters can be brought up, I’m sure, at --

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: -- order, please -- at an appropriate time, some other time; but none of the privileges of the member has been breached.

Statements by the ministry.

ROYAL COMMISSION ON PENSIONS

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce the establishment of a royal commission to examine the state of pensions in the province of Ontario.

I also take pleasure in appointing Miss Donna J. Haley, QC, as chairman of this commission. Miss Haley has had a great deal of experience in the field of pensions. Since February, 1974, she has chaired the Pension Commission of Ontario and this February she was reappointed for another three-year term. As well, Miss Haley was a member of the task force on employee benefits under

part X of The Employment Standards Act, and has been involved with other task forces and commissions, both as a member and a participant in preparing briefs. In addition to these and many other duties, Miss Haley has been practising law with the firm of Haley and Martin in Toronto since 1970, and she was appointed a Queen’s Counsel in 1967.

Along with Miss Haley, Mr. Donald Coxe of Guelph, Mr. Walter Upshall of Toronto and Mr. Alfred Cordell of London will be commissioners in this public inquiry. Brief biographies of each are attached to this statement, together with the terms of reference. A representative of organized labour will be appointed shortly.

There are compelling reasons for initiating a royal commission on pensions. During the past year, the private sector has encountered criticism for its apparent inability to provide adequate retirement pensions; and further, it has become obvious that private sector pension plans find it financially difficult, under the existing institutional and legislative arrangements, to maintain the real value of pensions during periods of inflation. This fact, alongside fully-indexed Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security benefits, and conspicuous fully-indexed benefits of federal and provincial public employee pensions plans, has caused some public dissatisfaction with private sector pensions.

As a consequence, there has been widespread pressure to significantly expand the Canada Pension Plan at the cost of displacing private sector pension plans. Such an expansion of the CPP under its present financial structure would result in a private-to-public shift of capital, increase intervention by government in an individual’s consumption/savings decisions and a much larger transfer of income between the present generation and the next.

We are approaching a crossroads with respect to the financing of the Canada Pension Plan. The government of this province welcomes views and suggestions as to the appropriate method for financing the CPP, and what investment policies should be followed with respect to any surplus funds that are created. Similarly, the commission will solicit opinions on the future structure and investment role of public sector employee pension plans.

Before Ontario embarks on any changes to its own pension legislation, or agrees to changes in the Canada Pension Plan, it is absolutely essential to know the economic impact of these changes. Pensions involve social, political and economic issues which are as complex as they are significant. The importance and the complexities of the issues involved require the establishment of a commission. The in-depth investigation of the commission and its final recommendations will provide the government of this province with much-needed information and will determine the direction in which pension policies should be pursued.

The royal commission will seek and welcome submissions from all interested parties during its investigations. We have heard much from those who are avowed spokesmen for the public but we have heard little from the public themselves. I wish to emphasize that submissions from the public are specifically welcomed. Their participation is necessary if the commission is to evaluate the effectiveness of current pension policies and formulate appropriate changes.

SHIPBUILDING

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have a very brief announcement to share with the House. We have been expressing some interest in employment. The member from the riding involved is there at the moment, and I am pleased to say I have received a report, through my wife who has just christened the motor vessel, Algolake at Collingwood, a maximum sized vessel which can be built for the Seaway and which will be hauling Ontario coal. I understand the christening went well; that the champagne, or whatever it was -- the Canadian champagne, I’m sure -- broke on the first effort.

Mr. Roy: It was good they sent her and not you.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It was also brought to my attention that there will be a press conference in Collingwood this afternoon where an announcement will be made that a similar ship, to be known as Hull 215 --

Mr. Nixon: That’s a romantic name.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- will be commenced in June and built for Algoma Central Railway; built by Canadian Shipbuilding and Engineering in that community.

Hopefully, it will provide much employment in the area. It is estimated that at the peak of production of this new vessel, there will be 850 people employed at the shipyards in Collingwood, without us having to take an equity position in that great organization.

Mr. Lewis: We didn’t say that.

Mr. Moffatt: The Leader of the Opposition wins again.

Mr. Lewis: I thank you for acting so quickly.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Leader of the Opposition shouldn’t thank me, he should thank my wife.

Mr. MacDonald: That would be much more pleasurable.

BASEBALL TICKETS

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I hope you won’t rule me out of order; this is a statement, and as such perhaps it should come before orders of the day, but I do have a small problem which will become evident in a few moments.

I understand that the Leader of the Opposition, while contemplating the government’s Throne Speech, and offering co-operation and legislative dependability, has also been cited by the press as being upset at not having received baseball tickets.

Mr. Lewis: Upset isn’t the word, it is “concerned.”

Hon. Mr. Davis: The saddest hallmark of old, tired, bankrupt and intellectually stilted socialism -- that of the variety espoused so eloquently by the Leader of the Opposition -- is that it institutionalizes envy, preaches total lack of faith in personal private commitments and initiative.

Mr. Lewis: Did you have to have this written for you?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I wanted you to understand --

Mr. Lewis: Have you no spontaneity left?

Mr. Breithaupt: He may strike out as well.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I wanted you to understand, because I don’t have many more and I have to be very careful of what I say. I made the private commitment to take the initiative of offering to the Leader of the Opposition two tickets to the ball game, which I am pleased now to transmit. The seats, sir, are slightly to the left of the plate. I could not get those far out in left field which would be more appropriate, but I want to assure him that they are in the blues.

[2:15]

Mr. Speaker: I might allow a brief response to that out-of-order statement.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if I may, as a matter of simple graciousness and without a text, thank the Premier immensely for his generosity and say that I would sit anywhere in that stadium tomorrow other than the Premier’s box, because I would not wish to be the recipient of booing but to boo myself.

Mr. Speaker: I think we should hear briefly from the member for Hamilton West.

Mr. S. Smith: On a point of view, I suppose it is, I would like to say that to be sure that I could participate in the booing, we have already purchased four tickets which we will be using.

Mr. Speaker: The Speaker has been forgotten in all this.

Mr. Lewis: That’s free enterprise for you.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member have a point of order?

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I hate to keep this going and belabour this matter, but I am rising again on the Minister of Labour’s attempt to respond, and I ask Mr. Speaker to turn, when he has an opportunity, to page 1435-2 of the Instant Hansard for yesterday:

“Hon. B. Stephenson: I do worry about your language, Elie. It’s pretty filthy.”

And that’s quoted in Instant Hansard.

Mr. Lewis: It is time you told the truth.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I stated before that -- order, please -- on rising on a matter of privilege, one must state the privilege. If it’s a matter of debate, a matter of

interpretation, that is not a point of privilege. There’s no privilege. I say again, if there is a difference of opinion on the

interpretation or meaning of someone’s words -- order, please -- it is not a point of privilege.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order if I may.

Mr. Speaker: Your point of order.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, if a member, either in government or opposition, has specifically denied the use of language and words which are explicitly contained in Hansard, surely it is a breach of the privilege of the House not to have that corrected or drawn to the attention of the House?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. As I understand there was no misquoting; and that’s what a member may rise on.

Mr. Lewis: She denied the words.

Mr. Speaker: No. As I understand it, it was a matter -- order, please.

Mr. MacDonald: She denied it this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: I heard it very well, I think, and it was a matter of

interpretation.

Some hon. members: No, no.

Mr. MacDonald: Read the Instant Hansard.

Mr. Speaker: I haven’t heard of any words having been misquoted. I will check the record and just see for myself. As far as I am concerned, as I understand it, there was not a misquoting. That’s what a person may rise on.

Mr. Deans: It was a denial.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Treasurer.

AUDIT LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, at the appropriate time this afternoon I will be introducing The Audit Act, 1977. This new Act represents, I believe, a significant structural reform to help all of us improve the productivity and accountability of our government institutions.

Since the first auditor for the province was appointed in 1869, it has been seen that this office performs an essential role in making responsible government work. Major revisions in our audit legislation have moved to confirm and clarify its task.

In 1954, The Financial Administration Act was introduced to deal separately with certain functions which were not directly related to the audit process. The last amendment to the current legislation, made in 1971, provided the means to phase out the pre-audit function of the Provincial Auditor. Thus relieved of the task of examining each requisition for funds within approved appropriations before a cheque could be issued, the auditor gained a larger degree of independence and more time to evaluate the internal controls of each ministry.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation I have the privilege to introduce today aims to strengthen the role and responsibility of the Provincial Auditor and to delete those sections of the current legislation which still pertain to the pre-audit function or are otherwise redundant.

This proposed Act will: First, require the Provincial Auditor to report on the economy and efficiency of expenditures, as well as on the procedures undertaken by the ministries to measure the effectiveness of their programmes; second, broaden the powers and responsibilities of the Provincial Auditor by providing for inspection audits or of requiring a full accounting from recipients of transfer payments, which now make up more than 70 per cent of provincial expenditures; third, expand the powers and responsibilities of the Provincial Auditor regarding the audits of Crown agencies and Crown-controlled corporations; fourth, improve the independence of the Provincial Auditor by having his staffing and financial requirements approved by the Board of Internal Economy and by having his report tabled directly in the Legislature by the Speaker.

In preparing this legislation the government is indebted to the fine work of the independent review committee on the office of the Auditor General of Canada, which was under the chairmanship of the late J. R. M. Wilson, FCA, and to the experience of the Exchequer and Audit Department of the United Kingdom. Also, I would like to thank the members of the standing committee on public accounts for their advice and recommendations.

We propose by this legislation to provide the auditor with a more visible and dynamic mandate. He will now be able to bring to the attention of the Legislature cases where he has observed that value for money, comprising the concepts of economy and efficiency, has not been obtained. We look forward to his reporting on the assessment of our procedures to measure effectiveness, and whether our activities are achieving positive results in relation to our legislative goals and objectives. This could only spur us on to be concrete about what we want to do and careful about how we go about it.

I recognize that certain jurisdictions are hesitant to take this course for fear of undermining the primacy of our representative system, but I feel that this concern is ill-conceived. The immediate danger of modern government is that its size and complexity may diminish our capacity to check bureaucracy and to debate better ways of doing things. A stronger auditor cannot diminish the responsibilities of this Legislature, but this office can help us perform our tasks more competently, and thereby enhance the good name of this system of government which we cherish.

ALUMINUM WIRING

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce today a one-man inquiry which is being instituted under The Public Inquiries Act to examine the reliability and safety of aluminum wiring for residential use.

Mr. Moffatt: Boy, you’re dynamite.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The government recognizes that there are questions in the public mind and a lack of consensus among the standard-setting bodies, manufacturing industries, installers, electrical inspection agencies and consumer organizations as to the reliability and safety of this type of wired electrical circuits.

In order to resolve the conflict of views and to ensure that the public interest is best served, we have appointed Dr. J. Tuzo Wilson to undertake this task.

The terms of reference for this inquiry are quite simple and straightforward:

1. To investigate all matters relating to the safety and reliability of aluminum-wired electrical circuits for residential use, relative to the safety and reliability of copper-wired circuits for residential use.

2. To hold public hearings to enable groups and organizations, individual citizens and representatives of industry to present evidence and other pertinent information on the subject.

3. To make appropriate recommendations, if warranted, on any measures that should be taken by the government of Ontario, by other levels of government, by the general public and by the industry.

I am pleased that as eminent a scientist and scholar as Dr. Wilson has been able to take on this task. As members of the House are probably aware, Dr. Wilson is a former professor of geophysics at the University of Toronto, principal of Erindale College, and since 1974 has been director-general of the Ontario Science Centre. He is a noted author and a fellow of several learned societies, including the Royal Society of Canada and the Royal Society of London, and an associate of the National Academy of Science in the United States.

Dr. Wilson will, of course, be accorded the full assistance and co-operation of all government ministries, boards, agencies and commissions, and will have the authority to engage counsel, expert technical advisers, investigators and other staff as necessary.

I would emphasize that this inquiry is being undertaken in the public interest. I’m sure that the members of the House, many of whom have spoken on the issue, will look forward to Dr. Wilson’s report.

FARM INCOME STABILIZATION COMMISSION

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce the appointment of the members of the Farm Income Stabilization Commission of Ontario. The members representing the three major agricultural organizations are:

Mr. Conway: Gordon Hill?

Hon. W. Newman: Cash crop and beef farmer Hilbert Van Ankum of Wroxeter, representing the Christian Farmers’ Federation; dairy farmer Ellard Powers of Beachburg, representing the National Farmers’ Union; and tobacco and corn farmer Albin Kormas of Vanessa, representing the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.

Other commissioners are cash crop farmers: Jules Debrabandere of St. Marys, dairy farmer; dairy farmer George McLaughlin of Beaverton, a former chairman of the Ontario Milk Marketing Board; and dairy and beef farmer Arden Baker of Brockville.

Chairman of the commission is Henry Ediger, who is also chairman of the Crop Insurance Commission.

Mr. Nixon: That is in the riding of Brant.

Mr. Breithaupt: Didn’t Gordon Hill make it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: He sure led you guys up the garden path.

Mr. Breithaupt: No, not us at all.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You are right on. Gordon Hill didn’t make it; and he won’t.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased with these appointments. I believe the experience these people have in various sectors of agriculture will help ensure the success of Ontario’s income stabilization programme.

The commissioners will administer The Farm Income Stabilization Act, which was proclaimed April 4. Under the Act, agricultural producers will be able to establish a stabilization plan for individual commodities. Each plan will be financed one-third by participating producers, two-thirds by the government of Ontario. Plans will be established only at the request of producers, and membership is voluntary.

Now that the commission has been appointed, the stabilization programmes can be applied to the 1977 production year.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions. The Leader of the Opposition.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mr. Lewis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the absence of the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells), perhaps I could put a question to the Premier.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think the issue is really quite that simple. The Minister of Education will be here and I am sure would be quite prepared to reply and give his point of view to the Leader of the Opposition. I expect he will be here shortly.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if when that happens I could redirect I would appreciate it -- I’ll consider that a question, of course -- if you would allow me at that point.

Mr. Speaker: We could class it as supplementary if we are still in the question period.

PUBLIC HEALTH NURSES

Mr. Lewis: Thank you. I’ll ask a question, then, of the Minister of Labour, if I may:

Can the Minister of Labour indicate to us what her plans are, beyond the industrial disputes commissioner appointed into the three collective bargaining disputes with the public health nurses, to deal with the other, I guess more than 20 areas still outstanding, still unresolved, in what is one of the longest ongoing labour disputes in this province for many years?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am awaiting the report of the industrial inquiry commissioner who has been appointed. I anticipate we shall have that report, probably by the end of this month, and hopefully there will be some directions which will be delineated by the report which we will be able to apply to the other areas.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, if I may; if that report turns out to be as futile as every other initiative has been in the case of the remaining units, might the minister, for the purpose of reaching a resolution of the bargaining process, take into trusteeship, purely for the purpose of collective bargaining, those boards of health which are intractable? Let them do all their other normal functions but resolve it once and for all so that we don’t have to retreat to arbitrary legislation?

Mr. S. Smith: Anything but arbitration.

Mr. Lewis: If possible, yes.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting idea, one which has been proposed previously as a matter of fact, and one which I would consider to be an almost last-resort activity. But I shall certainly take it under consideration.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, the member for Hamilton West.

Mr. S. Smith: Surely before the minister has to go to the extent of taking boards of health into trusteeship, surely she could consider, could she not, giving these nurses the right to arbitration, which is all they ask and all they require?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, as I think I said, I would consider the hon. Leader of the Opposition’s suggestion a last resort. I think there are many other steps which one would consider before that one.

Mr. Lewis: None of them is working.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Hamilton West with his questions then, please.

BEER SALES AT SPORTS EVENTS

Mr. S. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations:

In the light of the decision last night by Metro council in favour of the sale of beer at Blue Jay baseball games, at least on a six-months’ trial bails, might the minister now be prepared to support the resolution that I have tabled today which gives people credit for sufficient maturity to conduct themselves responsibly at the ball game, and permit beer to be sold at professional baseball stadiums in Ontario?

[2:30]

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I’ve seen neither the resolution from Metro council nor the resolution that the hon. member mentions.

Mr. Nixon: You are like Lord Nelson.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Once I’ve seen them I’ll be discussing them with my cabinet colleagues and it will be a cabinet decision.

Mr. Peterson: What do you say, Sidney?

Mr. Nixon: You have got two blind eyes.

Mr. S. Smith: Does the minister, or for that matter does the Premier, agree with their former candidate, Barbara Greene, who said on the radio this morning that they are “out of touch with young people if you think that they’re going to get their first drink at the ball game”; and that in any case, “better they should get it there than in the back alleys of Metropolitan Toronto”? Are you aware of that comment by your former candidate; and how do you feel about that?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Is that to me? Are you asking me?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I’m not aware of the comment; and I wouldn’t agree with it if I was aware of it.

Mr. Lewis: Is that a matter of confidence?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes; and I have news for you, be very careful.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough-Ellesmere with a supplementary.

Mr. Warner: To the minister: Could he share with us the explanation that he will be giving to Metro council with respect to a definition of local autonomy and how that affects this decision?

Mr. Deans: Would you fight an election over beer?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I’d be glad to share with the hon. member and any other members of the House whatever explanation is given to Metro council upon receipt of whatever resolution has been made by that council. I haven’t seen it, I can’t comment on it; and I don’t know how I can share the reasons until that time comes.

Mr. Cassidy: Oh, you are hiding.

Mr. Nixon: Bill knows best, he knows what local autonomy is.

Mr. Samis: Could the minister tell us if, once the election is over, once the baseball season is over, he would reconsider his intractable, immutable decision for the following season?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Beer in the Cornwall arena?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I’m very grateful to the hon. member for his confidence that after the election I’ll still be in a position to make that decision; and I assure him that I will do so.

Mr. Warner: As your party’s critic perhaps.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The most revealing question of the week.

Mr. S. Smith: The new defeated party -- the NDP.

CANADIAN HISTORY

Mr. S. Smith: What is the Premier’s response to the charges levelled last night during the TVOntario programme entitled Issues, and supported by, among others, Dr. Ian Macdonald, that the inadequate instruction in Canadian history in our schools is a primary cause of the tensions that we are now experiencing in Confederation?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I must confess that I didn’t have a free evening last night --

Mr. Nixon: You need a rest, Bill.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- to watch TVOntario; which is a great organization; I’m delighted to know the leader of the third party is watching it. I was working in the public interest.

Mr. Reid: It is nice to keep busy.

Mr. Cassidy: It is a matter of opinion.

Mr. S. Smith: Does the Premier not get it in Fort Lauderdale?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I was hoping the hon. member was going to ask me about beer. I guess when you’re at 13 per cent you seize on any issue, don’t you?

Mr. Roy: You weren’t that popular about a year ago.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please; only the hon. Premier has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Okay, who is on his side? Put your hands up.

Mr. Reid: I am.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, have you heard any kind of an answer?

Mr. Speaker: No, because of the interjections. The hon. Premier can continue with the answer to the question please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If there were fewer interjections I could get to my answer. I have to confess I did not see the programme so it’s very difficult for me to comment on something I didn’t see. However, I go back to a period of time when we had debates in this Legislature and discussions on the whole question of Canadian history. I can recall some dialogue between myself and the former leader of the third party on this issue.

It was very constructive. I can recall some constructive criticism emanating from that party as it related to a programme that I rather personally had initiated with respect to the teaching of Canadian history in the school system of this province. I recall very vividly a report being prepared related to this very subject. I acknowledge the great interest of a late member of this House, and one who took a very active interest in this himself, Alex MacLeod, who was partially involved in the development of this concern, this critique, and we discovered some very interesting things. I am just trying to give some background to the leader of the third party.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We discovered there was a certain reluctance --

Mr. S. Smith: it is a serious matter.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is a serious matter and I took it very seriously; I am pointing this out to him so that he will learn something from the history of the situation.

Mr. S. Smith: Then give an intelligent answer. Don’t lecture me.

Mr. Lewis: This is intolerable.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am having a little bit of fun.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Would the hon. Premier continue with the answer to the first question?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, now the Leader of the Opposition is concerned about his other two points.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The first question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, what we discovered in that discussion with the people in the profession, the history teachers, was their own reluctance in terms of, shall we say Canadian history being colourful, being the kind of thing they wished to emphasize.

As a result of this study, the Ministry of Education then, as it does now, has given great encouragement to the teaching of Canadian history. But I would point out to the leader of the third party that the teaching of Canadian history cannot be confined to the teaching of history in one single province. I want to once again acknowledge the involvement of an organization headed by a gentleman who is very close to the members opposite, Mr.

Walter Gordon, in a programme which has been supported by this government in terms of finance, in terms of moral support, in terms of persuasion of the other provincial governments in this country as it relates to the teaching of Canadian history. I think it is important. It is something that has received a priority as far as government is concerned, and while I didn’t hear what Dr.

Macdonald, or President Macdonald, has said, I have to tell the leader of the third party if he had been here -- and I am not being critical of this -- some years ago, we had these discussions, and this government is very clearly on the record in terms of the importance of teaching Canadian history. But I say with respect it cannot be confined just to the province of Ontario.

I said something else, now that I am on the subject, some years ago --

Mr. Cassidy: We haven’t heard this style of answer for a long time.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Cassidy: This goes back four or five years.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Premier continue with the answer?

Mr. Peterson: The style is the man himself.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I made some other observations -- I forget to which organization -- that while we can’t get uniformity in terms of the teaching of history, that is something that I don’t think one can expect; we have made progress in terms of mathematics and science, but it is very difficult to get uniformity in Canadian history among all the provinces of Canada.

I don’t know whether this is what Mr. Macdonald was saying in whatever he said last night; I have no idea. He is only 100 yards away and I can go and ask him. But I would say to the leader of the third party that there are many reasons for the present difficulties we face, and I do not minimize the importance of history. It is taught in schools right across this country, as being a very important priority. But I just can’t tell him that we have any capacity here to determine the history courses, the texts and so on in all the various provinces of this country.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, Mr. Speaker, could the Premier just answer two specific points; and they are: Can he assure us that he will take issue with the Minister of Education and guarantee that the new core curriculum, which includes Canadian studies, be implemented for those students presently in high school rather than simply for those who may be entering this fall, so at least they will know Canadian history; and can he guarantee us that some steps will be taken so that every public school child, every elementary school child in Ontario, shall have some reasonable understanding of the basic history of this country, especially at this time of crisis?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It is in public schools, it is already in public schools; it is already there.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Talk to your former leader.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Where were you educated?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I assume this is the point the leader of the third party made to that massive audience in Oakville last night on matters of education. I would say to him -- and I don’t often get provoked -- the students in our school system are learning Canadian history. I happen to have five in the system. I don’t know how many the member has.

Mr. S. Smith: Two, and they haven’t learned a thing about Canadian history.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, my five are learning something about Canadian history and they are damned proud of it. What I can’t say to the leader of the third party is that every student in Canada is going to learn the same history. We don’t have that capacity. It may be one of the problems, but to suggest to the public of this province that young people in our elementary and secondary school system aren’t learning Canadian history and have no appreciation of it, is just pure, utter nonsense and he should know better.

Mr. Lewis: One of my children knows a great deal about Upper Canada.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been answered. I’ll allow the member for Kitchener-Wilmot a final supplementary on this question.

Mr. Sweeney: Is the Premier not aware of the fact that it was on his own initiative in 1968, as the then Minister of Education, that it was no longer required that history be a compulsory subject in the secondary schools of this province?

An hon. member: Right.

Mr. Sweeney: And has not been since that time?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know a little more about the educational system in this province than some of his colleagues.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He knows full well Canadian history is compulsory. It is compulsory in the elementary grades and has been since day one.

This is where the young people get an appreciation and understanding. If he didn’t teach it in his system then it was his negligence, but it was being taught in every other system in this province.

Mr. Conway: That is not the question.

Mr. Sweeney: The question has not been answered.

Mr. S. Smith: You are on weak ground.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I announced that was a final supplementary. I might point out that we have been close to 15 minutes on the --

Mr. Breithaupt: Who are you pointing it out to?

Mr. Speaker: Just to the House.

Mr. Breithaupt: I don’t think we can have both leaders’ questions answered at such length.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. There has been a request that the question period change its format a certain amount to give more people a chance to ask questions and get answers. If that is going to be abused, if you spoil it; it’s your question period and I can’t help that.

Now then we will go back, as we promised. The Leader of the Opposition asked permission, and was granted it, to complete his first question -- I guess we could call it that. The Minister of Education being here, he may now do that.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mr. S. Smith: I think you are trying to get Cressy off the hook.

Mr. Lewis: Cressy? He is no longer there.

Mr. S. Smith: Yes, but he did the overhiring.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that there is a problem, budget-wise, insofar as the Toronto board is concerned. Declining enrolment is also part of the problem, as is the Metro staffing formula, a negotiated formula.

All of these together mean that the Toronto board, as I understand it, is not able to keep a group of teachers they hired and whom they didn’t need last year. I think no one disputes that fact. It was an error, and errors are made, I guess we have to realize that.

Certain accommodations were made for those teachers over the year. But now the issue of permanent jobs for them is the question and it isn’t possible for the Toronto board, under those various formulas I just stated, to offer permanent employment.

[2:45]

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary then, quickly: Since the minister, as others, finds it unhappy that we always seem to have to cut back in the most vulnerable areas of the school system, around kids who are most vulnerable, and since he intends to introduce measures, financial included, to provide greater support in precisely those areas, can he ask the Toronto board to declare a moratorium on the dismissal of those teachers so that they can be absorbed, contingent on the minister’s programmes?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I can’t give the member that assurance until I find out exactly how this relates to the 159. I understand that 44 special education positions are being somehow phased out. I’d like to find out why, and how that relates to this particular problem. Certainly it doesn’t sound at first hearing as if it’s a very reasonable way to do it, but I’ve got to investigate it a little more before I can find out exactly why this is the situation.

I think my friend has to remember that the decision to do this has been made by a group of people who are elected the same as we are, and represent the citizens of Toronto. If we believe all we say about local municipal bodies, they are closer to those people whom they represent than even we are.

Mr. Lewis: Like Essex county.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Is this a supplementary?

Mr. Warner: And will not include --

Interjection.

Mr. Lewis: What’s the Treasurer muttering about? Let the Minister of Education answer the question.

Mr. Conway: Darcy, you are not boss yet.

Mr. Ruston: He’s trying hard, though.

Mr. Grande: Could the minister give us some ideas in terms of what these new directions are that he is talking about, as a result of the Throne Speech, in terms of ESL and in terms of --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I’m sure the hon. member heard the hon. minister state these new initiatives will be announced shortly, and we will await that time.

HOUSING PROGRAMME

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, a question for the -- Point of order, Mr. Speaker: Is he still to be referred to as the Minister of Housing?

Mr. Speaker: I don’t understand the question. Would the hon. member please ask the question, if he has one, of the ministry?

Mr. Breaugh: To the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie, I think the Minister of Housing: Would he be a little more specific in providing the House with the inventory or a list of properties that he intends to make available, with actual prices that he will charge to builders or developers, in this new dismantling of the HOME programme? And when he does that, does he intend to address himself to that small problem in the assisted-home-ownership programme of no income ceiling, so that the programme itself that he has opted into might be abused, if you like, by those who may not need the financial assistance? Does the minister intend in any way to address himself to that problem?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the hon. member has not taken the time to read the programme or he would know that there is, in fact, an income ceiling and that the grant structure that has been set up in the combination of the two programmes provides for a declining grant, to the point where there is no grant when the income ceilings are there -- which has been a position espoused by the member’s predecessor, a very commendable predecessor; the weakness of the opposition is noticeable now. It’s there; read it.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s a gratuitous comment.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: But true.

Mr. Breaugh: Supplementary: I certainly appreciate the quality of the response. I wonder whether he does intend to present to the House the list of the properties that will be made available and the actual prices that would be charged. Does he intend to give us any inkling as to what he intends to do with things like North Pickering and Cayuga sites?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, certainly the prices of those lands will be public knowledge; we have said so, that they will be made available on the public market. I’ve indicated I can’t give the member a specific price until such times as appraisals of the lands have been completed. We have said in the statements, and I repeat here, that it was intended they would be sold and will be sold at the low end of the market, the lowest of three appraisals.

I cannot comment on the Cayuga lands because it is not my area of responsibility. As far as North Pickering is concerned, we are carrying on with the final acquisition of that land. As the member knows, there is now some controversy over that, and at the same time we are proceeding with the planning for the area in conjunction with the regional municipality of Durham, to whom we have a commitment of not proceeding until we can find an accommodation with the region.

Mr. Breaugh: Could I have another supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We’ve had two questions. The one had to do with income ceilings and the other had to do with the price of lots; one’s not supplementary to the other. I allowed them because they’re in the same general field, but is this a supplementary to that question? It is? Then I’ll allow a final supplementary.

Mr. Breaugh: Could the minister provide us with the rationale for proceeding with North Pickering and other sites under the Ministry of Housing, when he intends to buy it with public funds and then turn it back to private enterprise? Why is he continuing to do that?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The hon. member should be well aware that the lands I’m referring to under the AHOP-HOME programme are lands that were purchased and were being held by the Ontario Housing Corporation.

Mr. Lewis: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The lands at the North Pickering site are lands that were not purchased by the Ontario Housing Corporation but are now in the hands of the North Pickering Development Corporation --

Mr. Lewis: They are both public lands.

Mr. Cassidy: They are public lands.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- and they are proceeding in their planning as a developer would and are dealing with the regional municipality. It is not in my area of responsibility.

Mr. Breaugh: An excellent record of performance.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The hon. member will have to read the material and understand what is happening in those areas.

ABORTIONS

Mr. Sweeney: A question to the Minister of Health: What will be the response of his government to the initiative by the federal Minister of Health that he intends to press the provincial governments to set up regional abortion clinics to replace the present practice in provincial hospitals?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I have had no such indication from my federal counterpart, Mr. Lalonde. I understand the federal Minister of Justice, Mr. Basford, has indicated he intends to tour the provinces to meet with officials. There has been no prior indication of what he specifically intends to say to us. When the report, known as the Badgley report, was received by my office, I established a review committee made up of representatives of the OMA and the OHA under Dr. Caudwell of my ministry and I should have their report within a few months.

Mr. Sweeney: Supplementary: What would be the criteria of this ministry to determine whether or not regional abortion clinics might be set up?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We are not considering setting up regional abortion clinics. I don’t know where it comes from. Maybe that’s an idea being espoused by the hon. member, but it is not being espoused by me. The committee to which I referred, under Dr. Caudwell, is examining the report as it pertains to the application of the aspects of the federal Criminal Code that relate to therapeutic abortions -- how they’re applied in this province and how fairly they’re applied.

Ms. Gigantes: Supplementary: I’m wondering if the Minister of Health has considered adding a woman to his review committee?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: There are two women members of the committee.

Mr. Nixon: Another one will make three.

Mr. Ruston: Take one off; they only want one.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

DRIVERS’ MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS

Hon. Mr. Snow: I would like to reply to two questions asked on Monday, April 4, by the hon. member for Etobicoke.

Officials of my ministry did meet with members of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters on March 17 and March 31, 1977. The question of confidentiality of medical records was raised at those meetings. The first concern raised was the right of the drivers to refuse to supply an employer with a copy of the medical report. It was, of course, possible to state emphatically that the employer had no entitlement to such reports.

On the more general question of confidentiality of medical records in our files, they were advised that complete confidentiality is maintained as a matter of firm ministry policy. This is not a new policy. The ministry’s medical advisory committee has functioned for some 30 years and confidentiality of medical records has been maintained during that period and continues under the new licensing programme.

Section 143 of The Highway Traffic Act makes the original report of a medical practitioner, required under this section, privileged for the information of the registrar only and not open to public inspection. While this

section does not ensure confidentiality of the types of reports filed by drivers for licensing purposes, the same policy is supplied to them without exception.

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would also like to reply to a question asked Monday by the hon. member for Durham East also in connection with the classified drivers’ licence system.

On the matter of the diabetics being excluded from operation of heavy trucks or passenger transport, this follows the recommendation of the Canadian Medical Association and is dealt with on pages 27 and 28 of their publication, A Guide for Physicians in Determining Fitness to Drive a Motor Vehicle:

“A problem of diabetics is the risk created by the element of instability that is always present and which is subject to so many variables. Insulin reaction can be caused by irregular or skipped meals, degrees of exertion, other illnesses such as flu, nausea, et cetera, which would, at times, prevent the diabetic from adhering to the usual diabetic diet, as well as errors of the patient in insulin dosage. An insulin reaction is not always accompanied by a warning and so mental confusion, automatic behaviour without memory or ability to function normally, or complete loss of consciousness may occur.

Should any of these occur while driving larger commercial vehicles, or passenger-carrying vehicles, the results are potentially that much more hazardous.”

Mr. Philip: I wonder why the minister cannot simply accept a statement by a qualified physician that the particular driver lives up to the criteria set by the ministry, rather than require the filing of all this detailed documentation that can fall into the wrong hands.

An hon. member: Like insurance companies.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I don’t believe --

Hon. Mr. Davis: You people are experts, yes.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- this information is at all likely to fall into the wrong hands.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Like you leave it on the desk and say it is there.

Hon. Mr. Snow: As I mentioned -- and if the Premier wouldn’t interrupt me, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Snow: As I stated, Mr. Speaker, it is a strict ministry policy that all these medical records are kept confidential.

Mr. Mancini: It is the moustache.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Although The Highway Traffic Act of which I quoted a

section requires the strict confidentiality of these records provided under

section 143, the same

section does not apply to the licensing records but, as I stated, as a ministry policy we follow the same degree of confidentiality. When reviewing future amendments, if it is the feeling of the House that it should be included, I’m going to discuss with my staff when we are bringing forward amendments to the Act that we include that degree of confidentiality right in the Act. I’m prepared to say right now that I will do that.

I’m not prepared to accept a simple statement from a doctor that a person meets our standards because, of course, we have a medical review committee; we have an appeal procedure, if it’s necessary for the medical review committee to have the form forwarded to it. This is the policy in any other similar circumstance where a medical is required, that the report of the doctor is forwarded to the receiving authority so that if there is any doubt it can be reviewed by a medical review committee and not by one individual. I think this supplies a considerable degree of protection for the driver whose privileges you are concerned about protecting.

[3:00]

Mr. Moffatt: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I appreciate the minister’s comments in regard to this question which was asked the other day, but what I would like to ask him now is, is there no recognition -- and I have read the regulations -- for the degrees of insulin requirements by various individuals, given that a great many people now qualify as commercial vehicle drivers holding licences? Those people will be precluded from holding such licence after February 1, 1978, and I think we are going to get into great difficulty there. Would the minister investigate that as well?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Well, yes, Mr. Speaker, I will send the hon. member a copy of this Canadian Medical Association booklet which may help him.

In my previous answer I mentioned the medical review committee; that’s why we have that committee. I think, not being one that knowledgeable about medicine, or not having had any direct personal experience with people who have to take insulin, there are obviously different degrees of capability or seriousness of the situation.

I think anyone whose driving privilege is affected by these new requirements would certainly be able to ask for a review of his or her particular situation by the medical review committee and forward the necessary doctors’ reports to support his particular degree of need so that it could be properly assessed. That’s why we have the medical review committee, so that these can be assessed on an individual basis independently, and not just take the word of one doctor’s yes or no.

Mr. Moffatt: Check with Bobby Clarke.

Mr. Cassidy: In view of the discrimination against people handicapped in this case, why is it that the diabetics are deemed not to be a risk if they drive cars; but to be a risk if they drive trucks?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t believe I ever said that they are considered not to be a risk if they are driving cars either. There is a degree of risk there.

I think I said in my first answer that with a person who could be subject to becoming incapable of driving because of this handicap, the degree of danger is much more serious if he or she is driving a bus down the highway with 50 or 60 passengers in it or driving a large semi-trailer than it is if he is driving his automobile. Of course, there is no doubt that if his degree of illness, shall we say, is serious enough, the medical review committee would not allow him to drive a car either.

BILINGUAL COURT SERVICES

Mr. Cassidy: A question to the Attorney General, Mr. Speaker: In view of the several announcements he has made about bilingual court facilities in Ottawa, can he now give a date when bilingual court facilities will begin in the Ottawa area?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes, Mr. Speaker. My best estimate at the present time is at the end of June.

WIRETAPPING CHARGE

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Attorney General as well: Is the Attorney General aware of a charge under

section 178 of The Criminal Code, the wiretapping section, against the Niagara Falls telephone repairman who apparently found a listening device in the course of changing telephones and that this individual was in fact charged and, as I understand, acquitted?

Would the Attorney General express to the House or maybe give a directive to his officers about the propriety of an individual in the course of his work like this being charged under

section 178 of The Criminal Code?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the particular case but I will be happy to learn what I can and report back to the House.

Mr. Roy: I wonder if the Attorney General as well might look at the fact that apparently

section 178 of the Code covers the case where one in the course of his work -- as is stated in the Code and I read just very briefly -- “in the course of operation of a telephone or telegraph, discloses that there is a listening device.” That is why, in fact, the individual in Niagara Falls, was charged.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: As I indicated I will look into all the circumstances of this particular case and report back to the hon. member and to the House.

TOWNSEND TOWNSITE

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: On Friday last the hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller) asked a question of the Premier as follows:

“Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Townsend site is in my riding and in view of the fact that agriculture requires many years of planning in advance, I wonder if the initial plans for the Townsend town site have been finalized, and when they may be made available?”

The planning work connected with the preparation of the Townsend community plan has, for all intents and purposes, been concluded. The planners are now preparing the final report for printing, and I understand it will be available in approximately six weeks. The results, of course, will be presented to the council of the regional municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk. In conjunction with this, however, the planning proposals will be subjected to review and evaluation by the responsible municipal and other public agencies, the citizens in the region and all other interested parties.

At the conclusion of that review the province will meet with the region to determine the acceptability of the plan or the need for revising it.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: I wonder if the minister can indicate whether his ministry has made a decision to go ahead with the servicing of at least a part of the Townsend city site and the building of homes within the next 15 months? Secondly, is the commitment made to bring a water service either fully into the Townsend site or at least as far as Jarvis?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No. We have not made a firm decision to bring that servicing all the way up. As the hon. member is well aware, I’m sure, there has been some debate going on in the regional council about that. We had indicated to the council at a meeting held here in Toronto that we would like to see development take place and would like to see approximately 240 to 250 houses on the site by 1980. That decision, though, has not been finalized. That, of course, would require bringing the services, as he suggested, initially up to the site.

We have not made any commitment as far as the servicing of the area into Jarvis or Hagersville is concerned. There is still some negotiation going on between Stelco and the region and the Ministry of the Environment concerning the water supply for the Stelco steel works there -- so, it’s all to be tied together. No final decisions have been made yet.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: I wonder if the minister could tell us what the estimated cost would be to service the proposed 250 lots in the proposed city of Townsend? We’ve heard $40 million.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I think the figure of $40 million is, probably, reasonably accurate -- I would refer to my absent colleague for more exact figures -- if you went in and put the total servicing in at one time. We have been looking at the possibility of starting off and phasing the servicing, so that you would not start off with an initial cost of $40 million, but substantially less than that. This would supply the water to those two communities that really need that water supply -- Jarvis and Hagersville -- as well as getting it to the Townsend site, and possibly using a lagoon system in the early part of the stage for sewer servicing.

LAND SPECULATION TAX EXEMPTION

Mr. Makarchuk: Question to the Minister of Revenue: In view of the fact that the Provincial Auditor has concluded that, on the basis of her ministry’s decision alone, Ronto Development Company owes the province of Ontario something like $493,158 -- that’s without interest -- does the minister intend to collect this money from the company now?

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: I have not been so informed by the auditor.

Mr. Makarchuk: Supplementary: Will the minister, first, try to find out from the auditor that the computation has been made and, second, report back to the House as to what she intends to do about the matter?

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: I will take the matter under advisement.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Can the minister at the same time undertake the review to see what the amount would be if in fact the full profit of Ronto were subject to the land speculation tax? It appears to the members of the standing committee that it could be as much as $2 million that has been forgone as a result of the order in council exempting Ronto.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: My ministry has already been represented and has expressed its opinion before the public accounts committee.

COURT FACILITIES

Mr. Stong: Does the Attorney General propose the establishing of county court facilities in Willowdale and the building of a provincial court complex at Woodbine and Steeles? If so, does he intend to continue with the court complex at Newmarket? Again, if so, when does he intend to commence the project at Newmarket?

Mr. Hodgson: That was announced last week.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I know of no proposed county court facilities in Willowdale. When the courthouse is built in the north end of the county, it would be hoped there would be county court and indeed Supreme Court facilities there. I believe the Minister of Government Services (Mr. J. R. Smith) made an announcement last week with respect to the commencement date. I’m afraid I can’t tell the member off the top of my head what it is at the moment.

LINCOLN PLACE NURSING HOME

Mr. Grande: My question is to the Minister of Health. Is he concerned that senior citizens are getting ripped off in nursing homes, in particular at the Lincoln Place Nursing Home? Is he aware that these senior citizens are being charged for services which they do not receive? Is he also aware that the ripoff has been going on since January 1975 and that Mr. Graham, chief of the nursing home inspection service, has known about it since May 1976 and to this date has done nothing about it?

Will the minister order an investigation or a review of the nursing home regarding pricing of services, whether the prices charged are legal and whether those residents who have been charged for services not rendered will be reimbursed?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, may I correct my answer to the member for Carleton East earlier? I said two of the members of the review committee were members of the female sex. I was incorrect. It’s three out of the four nominated by the OHA and the OMA.

Mr. Lewis: What was that? Members of the female sex?

Mr. Speaker: Now the answer to this question.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I believe the name of the nursing home in question is Lincoln Place. I haven’t had any correspondence from the member. Fortunately, I do read the newspapers and members of my staff have talked with Mr. Corder, who is the head of our inspection branch. That matter is being investigated. As soon as I have a report on the matter, I will get back to the member.

TUBE TURNS STRIKE

Mr. Spence: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Could the minister inform me if any progress has been made in settling the strike at Tube Turns of Canada Limited in Ridgetown? As has been brought to my attention, there is big concern.

Hon. B. Stephenson: To my knowledge, that strike is not as yet settled but the members of the mediation conciliation branch are in touch with both parties. If there is anything of event to report to members, I shall certainly report to the House.

BENEFITS RATES

Ms. Sandeman: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. In view of the fact that the Ministry of Community and Social Services has underspent its budget by some $31 million this year, could the minister explain why he is finding it so hard to give an immediate increase to recipients of family benefits and general welfare payments?

Mr. Conway: And don’t shout; just settle right down. Your one pair of shoes won’t last.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I have no intention of shouting. I am very calm.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. minister answer this particular question and just ignore the interjections, please?

[3:15]

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am sure the hon. member realizes, for one thing, that increases in the level of support for family benefits and the other income-support programmes are not a one-shot affair. While it’s under consideration, the matter has to take into consideration resources on a longer-term basis than just at this particular moment in time. I would point out, just to put it in perspective, that under the family benefits alone we pay out almost $30 million per month in support under that one programme, not taking into consideration general welfare assistance and the other income-support programmes.

So although the $30 million that the member referred to -- and I can’t at this point confirm whether that’s an accurate figure or not, but assuming that it is -- seems like a very substantial amount of money, taken in the total picture of what the cost is in terms of income support programmes it is not such a large amount. It would be substantially less than one month’s commitment, and if one looks at the long term, then I think one has to look at it more carefully before jumping to the conclusion that it’s a good way to get rid of some excess money you have in the budget at the moment.

Ms. Sandeman: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that for family benefits recipients it is often the short term that is the most important to them, and that in the short term of last year the underspending could have meant an average increase of 9.7 per cent to family benefits and general welfare recipients had it been put to those budgets?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I can’t, again, confirm the member’s figures or her calculations. I’d be glad to take a look at them.

Mr. Cassidy: Oh, for God’s sake.

Hon. Mr. Norton: But I might add that certainly I’m aware of the importance of the short term and the long term and I think it would be totally irresponsible of us to jump to the conclusion that an immediate and perhaps very popular short-term infusion of funds might be very popular at the moment and create a great public response. I want to find a more reasonable and longer-term proposal that is going to be of more substance to the people in the province of Ontario who are receiving income supplements.

Mr. Cassidy: You are just a trendy version of James Taylor.

Mr. Warner: Did James Taylor leave you all his old speeches?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. B. Newman: Would the minister consider phasing out any family benefits received by a recipient in case of the death of one of the members included in the family benefits team, rather than reducing it automatically on the death of the individual -- phasing it out over a period of time?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I would certainly be prepared to take a look at that. If the member could give me details of a particular case, I’d be quite prepared to look into it at the present time.

Mr. Warner: At the same time.

Mr. McClellan: Why don’t you do something?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Norton: There is a phasing-out programme under other circumstances. I’m not aware of the details in the case of death, but I’d be quite prepared to have a look at it.

FUEL RATES FOR FARMERS

Mr. Mancini: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Is the minister going to take action so that the farmers of Essex county and Ontario will no longer have to pay more for gasoline while they’re buying in bulk than they would when they buy at the retail level?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will check back through Hansard, I did cover that aspect of it. As far as the --

Mr. Conway: Have you done anything?

Mr. Nixon: It is still more expensive in bulk.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the hon. minister ignore the interjections and answer the first question.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest the hon. member should talk to his federal counterpart who put the five-cent tax on diesel fuel for farmers, for number one.

Mr. Nixon: What about your tax?

Mr. Breithaupt: What about your sales tax?

Hon. W. Newman: As far as tax is concerned in the province of Ontario, we don’t tax the agricultural community for gasoline or diesel fuel.

Mr. Sargent: What about your 19-cent tax?

An hon. member: They’re exempt.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Mancini: Supplementary: In view of the fact the farmers are now paying an average of three cents more per gallon while buying in bulk, does the Minister of Agriculture and Food have any plans for writing or getting information as to why these companies are allowed to do this? And does he also plan to take any steps, such as possibly writing himself to these companies to see if he can persuade them to lower their prices, in view of the fact that the farmers are already under severe hardships?

Mr. MacDonald: He is in favour of higher prices. Be frank, you are in favour of higher prices.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have already had correspondence with the Minister of Energy (Mr. Taylor) and had quite a lengthy reply back from him on the matter; it’s a matter of delivery by tank truck load and other matters. I think the member should ask the Minister of Energy (Mr. Taylor) for details on it, but certainly I will be glad to give the member the facts that I have if he wants them.

Mr. Warner: I heard be can’t read, Bill.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Attorney General has the answer to a question asked previously.

TORONTO DOWNTOWN PLAN

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, on Monday of this week, April 4, the hon. leader of the Liberal Party asked a question concerning the current Ontario Municipal Board hearings on the Toronto central core bylaw. At that time I agreed to provide further information with respect to senior citizens’ projects. It is my information that there are four senior citizens’ projects involved, which are being dealt with separately and apart from the core bylaw.

First, restricted area amendment bylaw 590-76 and 591-76 involves a senior citizens’ apartment building on the north side of Queen Street between Beverley and John Streets. No objections were filed to this project and it was approved on March 18 and the board’s order was issued on that date.

Second, restricted area amendment bylaw 616-76 and 616-77 involves a senior citizens’ apartment building on the southeast corner of Sherbourne Street and Dundas Street east. On March 18 the OMB was advised by the city legal department that formal application for approval is not now being made.

Third, restricted area amendment bylaw 620-76 and 622-76 involves a senior citizens’ building at numbers 12 to 14 Spadina Road. Objections have been received and a hearing is scheduled for May 19.

Fourth, restricted area amendment bylaw 566-76 and 567-76 involves a senior citizens’ apartment building on the south side of College Street, west of Spadina, east of Augusta Avenue. Objections have been received and the date for a hearing has been set for July 25.

The reasons that the senior citizens’ restricted-area amendment bylaws were capable of being separated from the core bylaw hearing is that these amending bylaws have, in fact, been passed by the city council. The matters that cannot be severed from the main core bylaw hearing are those applications to the council for amendments to restricted-area bylaws where the council has refused to pass the amendments.

As I understand the process, the hearing of the core bylaw involves a three-stage process: first of all, the consideration of the official plan as a whole; secondly, the consideration then of the particular height bylaw, and then the third stage of the process is the amendments to the bylaw, or I should say the exemptions that are requested to the bylaw. Because it has to be carried on in this three- stage process it is not possible, I understand, to separate out any of the other projects.

I would like to underline the concern of myself and my colleagues for the rate of unemployment in the province, and particularly the concerns of the construction industry. Following my meeting last week with the chairman, I wrote him a letter as follows:

“There has been much recent concern over the rising rate of unemployment and in particular the increase in unemployment in the construction industry. Representatives of the construction industry have indicated that part of the problem stems from a delay in applications for new construction projects which must be approved by the OMB.

“I believe we should do everything possible to ensure the construction projects are not being delayed by our inability to process the OMB applications within a reasonable time. It is my view that we should give priority to OMB applications which involve new construction projects. I would appreciate your comments on my suggestion along with any difficulties you anticipate would be encountered in scheduling such applications in priority to the other work of the OMB.”

In conclusion, I therefore invite any members of the construction industry, those involved in the industry, to advise us of any particular specific projects where they believe it would be in the public interest to expedite hearings before the OMB, and we would certainly lend our good offices to the expedition of these hearings. I understand further that the Treasurer of the province has had a similar conversation recently with the chairman to the same effect.

Mr. Speaker: May I suggest to the hon. Attorney General that an answer that length really should have been given in statements by the ministry.

Hon. Mr. Snow: But it was an important question.

WCB REHABILITATION PROGRAMME

Mr. Bounsall: A question of the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister really aware that the length of vocational retraining allowed by the Workmen’s Compensation Board, and therefore the type of course or programme that could be approved for an injured workman, is tied directly, and therefore limited, to his degree of residual disability or pension rating, irrespective of what course has been determined by Manpower, for example, through testing, as being the most appropriate course for that person, taking into account his interest, ability, intelligence and permanent productive prospects for the future?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I shall answer this extremely carefully because although I have been aware for a very long time of the relative weakness of the male sector of our species I really didn’t know --

Mr. Peterson: Compared to who?

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- until yesterday just how hypersensitive and how tremendously fragile were the psyches of the official opposition. Therefore, I shall be very sure in future that no words of mine will ever disturb their psyches unduly.

Mr. Breithaupt: Again.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes, I am aware of the kinds of limitations which are placed upon the rehabilitation programme. I am aware that these limitations are under review at the moment and that indeed there is to be a move to the direction of expansion of what has been a limitation in the past.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The oral question period has expired.

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker, earlier today the Minister of Housing inferred that the Assisted Home Ownership Programme has an income ceiling. May I just simply quote from page 8 of the CMHC information booklet on AHOP, one line? “There is no income limit.”

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, on the point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think if anything, it was a point of order which was raised as soon as he could. If there is a brief reply I’ll allow it.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has suggested that my answer to his original question was not correct.

Mr. Lewis: It wasn’t.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The hon. member is referring to the CMHC-AHOP programme which quite properly does not have income limitations. If the hon. member will look at the new programme of the combining of AHOP and HOME he will find that there are built-in limitations of income, and he knows that is correct.

Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports.

Motions.

AUDIT ACT

Hon. Mr. McKeough moved first reading of Bill 24, The Audit Act, 1977.

Motion agreed to.

MEDICAL DATA BANK ACT

Mr. B. Newman moved first reading of Bill 25, The Medical Data Bank Act, 1977.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to establish a medical data bank in which would be stored in computerized form the medical histories of persons in Ontario who wish to participate in such a bank. The proposed bank would be operated and maintained by the provincial Ministry of Health and every public hospital would have an outlet for the medical histories of persons using that hospital.

Written consent of a person concerned would be required before the record is stored in the bank and the medical history could not be removed without the written consent of his or her legally qualified medical practitioner. Social insurance numbers would be used for identification when using the medical data bank. Participation in the medical data bank would be on a volunteer basis only.

[3:30]

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Resumption of the adjourned debate on the amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech of the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, when I concluded last night I possibly made an inappropriate remark with regard to one of my colleagues, and to that end I would like to say that I am sorry.

Mr. Lewis: Your language was positively filthy.

Mr. Cunningham: I don’t want to engage in a debate with the hon. Leader of the Opposition because he’s been here a lot longer than I have, and he may stay a lot longer than I will.

Mr. Lewis: I doubt it.

Mr. Roy: I wouldn’t count on that.

Mr. Cunningham: I would only say to him at this time that my language was not filthy. There are some in this House whose language is filthy, he is not one of them, of course.

Many hon. members have read of the memo -- I don’t think any of us has seen the memo from the Ministry of Government Services. I see the minister is in his seat at this time; if he’d like to send us the memo advising the ministry to bill firms now and to bill at a higher rate, I’d like to see the contents of it myself. I certainly would appreciate it. I know the Hamilton District Chamber of Commerce would like to receive it as well; they were interested in the contents of it.

I must say I was somewhat disappointed to read, in the account published in the Toronto Globe and Mail, that it was requested by a senior official in the Ministry of Government Services that his associates contact their suppliers with a view to getting their bills in and getting them in at the highest possible rate before the end of the fiscal year in order that the ministry could maintain or increase its budget in the coming year.

Hon. J. R. Smith: Only for work in that fiscal year.

Mr. Cunningham: It’s hardly a standard business practice in the private sector, but I think it is typical of the stupidity that occurs in that particularly ministry. I can only say that it indicates quite clearly to me the need for the practices of zero-base budgeting. I think they should be considered very seriously as soon as possible. Ministries unable to meet their programme demands, and that fall below budget levels, should be hard-pressed, in my view, to justify budget increases in subsequent years. On the other hand ministries that over-spend their budgets should require serious analysis.

I was pleased to see today that we’re going to be giving consideration to The Audit Act. I think we should give some serious consideration to increasing the staff of our Provincial Auditor, Mr. Scott. I believe he and his staff have served the Legislature and the taxpayers very well, and especially indicating recently the abuse in the land speculation tax system and the problems in OHIP and a tremendous waste of millions at Minaki Lodge.

The government currently employs more than 14,000 contract employees. While I would say that some contracting can be justified, the process is often open to gross abuse in the form of patronage. The Civil Service Commission must be directed, I believe, to recommend guidelines which have economy and staff reductions as their first principles.

Serious consideration should be given to reorganizing and streamlining the cabinet. I was told not long ago that the cabinet in the British House has, I think, 25 persons operating 25 ministries. It’s inconceivable to me that in a province with eight million people, with various other levels of government sharing responsibilities, we should have the number of people we do have in the cabinet at the current time.

I would suggest that we could possibly give consideration to combining the Ministry of Colleges and Universities and the Ministry of Education because the two are so closely related. The tiny policy of the Ministry of Energy, I believe, should be combined with the Ministry of the Environment; they are directly related and, as things become more difficult in future as far as conservation of energy and the importance of our environment are concerned, I think a combination of them would serve us all very well.

Correctional Services, at the same time, might well be combined with the Solicitor General’s office, and Revenue could well be moved into the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs.

I believe, as I said earlier in my speech, that if all the ministries of this government served the people of northern Ontario effectively, there would be no need for a Ministry of Northern Affairs. In my view, there is no need for ministers without portfolio who, I respectfully submit, cost the taxpayers of Ontario at least $160,000 a year in current operating figures, and probably a considerable amount more thereafter, in the form of pensions, et cetera.

In these times of restraint, the fact that we have such high-priced help, which I don’t particularly think is required, really is a very serious condemnation of our sense of revenues and priorities -- especially when we are contemplating closing hospitals or maintaining low or inadequate levels of workmen’s compensation payments or family benefits assistance.

The cost of the Premier’s office itself is indicative of spending trends in the province of Ontario. The total cost of this, I believe, now approaches something in the area of almost $2 million per year. We have people in the building tripping all over themselves in that office -- some in this building who could be replaced with signs.

From my perspective, many wage settlements bear no relationship to productivity. While I don’t want to malign any particular union or group, I would say that some unions, both in the public and private sector, have abused their position. In Canadian society, we have rather inadequate methods of settling labour disputes. I would have hoped through the course of the Speech from the Throne that we would have seen some indication that some tremendous improvements would occur in the provincial sector. It is not surprising that we see the kind of unfortunate adversary types of systems that have developed.

It’s obvious to me now that we would do well to consider new methods of settling disputes, and they should be implemented immediately. I refer now to the need for updating our labour laws, the possibility of labour courts, recognition of final-offer selection as a method of collective bargaining, and productivity incentives -- especially incentives for profit-sharing which our tax system should recognize and encourage.

I’d like, very briefly, to make a few comments on private enterprise. Initially, I should admit my bias in this regard. I’m a product of that system and it’s a way of life I prefer to see continued. The late Robert Winters, the former federal cabinet minister, a Liberal, and prominent Canadian industrialist, once stated: “The more good decisions made in board rooms, the fewer will have to be made in cabinet chambers.” And, while that was said a number of years ago, I don’t think that is wrong.

Not long ago the chairman of the board of Labatts, also the owner of our new Blue Jays, stated: “Government ownership is no substitute for and guarantee of good management.” I think he was very correct in that regard.

Mr. Philip: We’re not going to nationalize the Blue Jays.

Mr. Cunningham: No, I don’t think the Blue Jays will have to be nationalized. They could use some hitters, I think, though.

I would have liked to have spent some time talking about the Anti-Inflation Board and some other subjects, but time does not permit.

Before I would conclude, I would like to make a few brief remarks on our regional system of government in Hamilton-Wentworth. When it was imposed on my constituents, they were assured there would be no loss of autonomy, there would be improved services, better strategy for growth, and a break on municipal taxes. I would respectfully submit that the opposite has occurred. Services have declined, the taxes continue to go up, there is currently no strategy for growth, local communities are losing their identities, duplication and confusion prevails.

I seriously feel that our fiscal situation in that area will continue to deteriorate if a complete administrative overhaul is not considered immediately.

I’m pleased to see that the provincial Treasurer is in his seat at this particular point in time, and, possibly, I might through this speech ask him to give serious consideration to such a review. I’ve done it on a number of occasions and I’d like to see it undertaken as soon as possible, because I seriously do not believe we are going to be able to continue that structure of government as it currently exists. I see some study was given recently to the Ottawa-Carleton area, and I would hope the same consideration would be given to our region.

I appreciate the efforts of the many people who work in the region, or for the region, and particularly the chairman, who is a fine person. But until administrative reform occurs, the cost to the taxpayer, I believe, will continue to rise.

Some people refer to the Hamilton-Wentworth region as a family. To that end, given the increase in taxes and the decrease in services, I think some of the communities in my riding should sue for non-support.

These are exciting times in the province of Ontario. The challenges are many and I believe these are times that require effective and immediate solutions to the problems. I also believe all members of this House have the moral commitment to work together on these contentious issues and our main challenge, I believe, is to see it through.

Mr. Davison: It is with great pleasure that I rise to participate in the Throne Speech debate and to reply to the Speech from the Throne. I promise to keep my remarks rather short.

Since I was elected to this assembly, there has been one agency of government that has continually caused severe hardships to large numbers of my constituents. That agency is the Workmen’s Compensation Board. My staff and I have spent countless hours working with injured workmen trying to rectify some of the problems and some of the wrongs being done by this board in Hamilton. I can think of no agency that has caused more social damage in the community I represent.

There is something terribly wrong with the Workmen’s Compensation Board and I’m thoroughly convinced that only the most drastic kind of action at this time can even begin to resolve the problems with the board. This is a most serious matter and I will not do it the injustice of attempting to deal with it in the limited time available in this debate.

However, I would like to put the government on notice that I will take every opportunity in the coming months to raise this matter in an exhaustive fashion and to detail case after case where injustices have been perpetrated upon my constituents by the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I won’t be the only member of the official opposition who will be doing so.

I would like to take this opportunity to bring before the House in some detail a matter that is becoming more and more urgent as the end of the month approaches For some time now, I have been quite concerned about certain individuals and certain businesses that are purchasing income tax refunds at rather considerable discounts in this province. April 30 is the tax deadline, so the need for speedy action is quite obvious.

In early February, these companies came to my attention as the result of constituents coming into my office and complaining about them. These businesses take an individual’s income tax information and provide an estimate of the tax refund. The client may then sell the full return for a portion of the refund which is then received in immediate cash. Power of attorney is turned over to the companies and the individual never sees the actual amount that he is reimbursed by the government. Any error, unintentionally or otherwise, on the part of the company or the individual can result in a substantial windfall profit for these companies without the knowledge of the client.

There is no standard percentage taken by these firms. What they do, is they make a determination, based on risk and based on the amount of money one is to get in his return, and refund him usually 60 per cent or less of the amount of money shown on your return. If one chooses to look at the fees they charge as interest rates, as some people do choose to look at them, compounded annually they can equal 2,000 per cent in some cases. It’s totally outrageous.

It was immediately apparent to me that the public was being ripped off by these companies. These companies have been, and still are, gouging those constituents of ours who can least afford it, the constituents of every member of this assembly, because the people most vulnerable to these services are those in such dire financial straits that immediate cash is necessary. I’m sure this House is the one forum in which I don’t have to make the case against this kind of activity. I’m sure that all members understand the kind of social damage that can result when so much money is taken out of people’s pockets.

Earlier this week, no less a radical rag than the Toronto Star criticized these activities in an editorial. It said: “There is something wrong when operators can prey on people, many of them unsophisticated and often desperate for money, by charging exorbitant rates.” Even that champion of consumer rights, that Ralph Nader of Ontario, our own Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Handleman), has lashed out at these firms. He said, and I quote: “We consider it almost to be a criminal offence,” or, and I quote again: “In our view, they ought to be prohibited and not merely regulated.” When constituents brought this matter to my attention, I made some initial inquiries.

[3:45]

Mr. Philip: But only by the federal government.

Mr. Davison: Yes, stand in line. I made some initial inquiries when my constituents brought this matter to my attention and I was quite surprised to find out that these operators aren’t breaking any laws. They are not breaking any municipal laws, they are not breaking any federal laws. There is no legislation in place.

It seemed to me at the time that the obvious next step was to write our dear old Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations about the matter, and I did so on February 15, 1977. I explained the situation and asked the minister to investigate the matter. I suggested that he propose changes to current laws that would get these services under control.

On February 22, the minister put pen to paper and signed what seemed at the time to be a more or less reasonable reply to my request. After some bizarre and on my part unsolicited comments, the gist of which seemed to have been an attack on the province of Quebec, the minister finally got down to the problem at hand. He parroted my concerns and explained that his ministry’s legal advisers had told him there was no way in which the province of Ontario could claim jurisdiction in this matter.

He also told me he had absolutely no authority under The Business Practices Act to move against these corporations, and he was further able to inform me that the chances of a conviction under The Unconscionable Transactions Act were quite slight. The minister concluded his letter by saying, and I quote: “I must confess that I am as frustrated as you are in attempting to deal with these kinds of operations.”

Mr. Speaker, if I might be able to suggest to you en passant, if the minister is as frustrated or even half as frustrated as I am, I think it’s about time he stopped engaging in the practice of sell frustration. At the time I wasn’t prepared to drop the matter, so I looked into it further. I looked for solutions on the municipal level, the provincial level and the federal level, and I will deal with the municipal and federal aspects very briefly later on.

The minister clearly indicated to me in that letter that other provinces were not challenging the federal government by introducing their own legislation. I was absolutely shocked when I discovered some time later that several provinces were not only considering bringing in legislation but actually already had legislation in place. Manitoba and Saskatchewan both have excellent legislation which limits the discounters to five cents on the dollar. They are required to pay 95 cents on the dollar. Even British Columbia, which isn’t exactly a bastion of progressive government these days, has legislation on the books which requires the discounters to pay 85 per cent.

Frankly, I didn’t know what to think. I was absolutely sure that neither the minister nor his staff was deliberately trying to mislead me. The only other conclusion that I could draw from the minister’s letter of February 15 -- I am sorry, February 22 -- was that his staff was so entirely ignorant of what was happening in the other provinces in this country that it suggested an unbelievable lack of competence on its part.

I wrote to the minister in rather strong terms suggesting he should make himself aware of the fact. I also asked him to introduce legislation when this House came back into session. I also told him I couldn’t imagine how he could possibly do anything less than that. Well, how poorly sometimes those of us in the opposition understand the reality of Tory government in Ontario. As my leader was saying the other day, for the Tories in Ontario, politics is very much the art of the minimum.

On March 31, at question period, I took the opportunity to ask the minister when he would introduce legislation. He took that opportunity to pass the buck along to Ottawa. Later on the same day, Ottawa passed the buck back to the province. The minister then had the unmitigated gall to attack those provinces in this country that were doing something to protect their citizens while he was sitting about doing absolutely nothing.

Mr. Makarchuk: That’s normal for them.

Mr. Davison: I’m afraid it is.

Mr. Philip: Who was that, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations?

Mr. Davison: Yes, “commercial protection” I think is the new name for the ministry. He said that the legislation in the other provinces was completely unconstitutional, that they had no right to be passing it. Under questioning from the Leader of the Opposition the minister admitted that in fact no jurisdiction had had their legislation successfully challenged in the court.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell the members of this House that I take a very dim view of any minister of the Crown who thinks that he’s a member of the judiciary branch of government rather than the executive or the legislative branch of government.

Mr. Makarchuk: Some of them think they are God.

Mr. Davison: Under questioning by the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick), the minister admitted that he hadn’t even bothered to talk with the Minister of Revenue, his cabinet colleague, about the possibility of a provincial solution. Now, I ask, how do you deal with such a character?

On April 4 I was forced to introduce a private member’s bill in an attempt to get some solution to this problem. I am sure it will be as effective as private members’ bills in the past have been, because I’m due in the lottery for Christmas, and the deadline for this is April 30.

On April 5 the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations penned another of his very weird replies to me, in which he said he was deeply disturbed. I was inclined to agree with him. He also had managed to come up with an entirely new excuse for not acting -- one that rather surprised me. Let me quote from that letter:

“We are all aware that there is now far too much legislative and administrative overlap between the two senior levels of government. Federal and provincial roles must be re-examined and rationalized. The case of the discounters is as clearcut a starting point as we will find.”

My goodness, for the sake of rationalizing overlap -- what greater cause? -- this minister is prepared to allow the people of our province to be gouged. What a sad and sorry thing government in Ontario has become.

One of the arguments that the minister uses frequently to avoid having to regulate these businesses is this desire of his to completely prohibit these sophisticated loansharking operation. It’s something new for him. That’s not an opinion he held earlier on this issue, because in an appearance by him before a recent parliamentary committee he proposed the suggestion which he himself admitted would not eliminate the practice but rather make it less profitable. In other words, Mr. Speaker, regulating the practice. There are so many examples of this minister fudging on this issue that I can’t possibly take the time to list them all.

I mentioned earlier that I would make some brief comments on the federal aspects of the situation and the municipal aspects of the situation, and I’d like to do so at this time. Clearly, the federal government is capable of acting in the matter. The reality, however, is that they have not yet passed legislation. That is not an excuse for this government to duck the issue; rather, it’s cause for this government to take action of one sort or another. I might add that if we wait for the federal Liberals to act, we could all be waiting for a very, very long time.

On March 4 of this year I wrote to the Hon. John Munro, who is the federal Liberal member in the area that I represent in this House, and asked him for his assistance in speeding up federal legislation for the protection of our mutual constituents. To this date, a month later, he has yet to even acknowledge receipt of my letter, so I don’t suggest we sit around waiting for the federal Liberal government to take action to protect the people of our province.

Last month I appeared before the city of Hamilton’s legislation, fire and licence committee to ask the committee to enact a bylaw attempting to solve this problem. The committee was quite concerned about the issue and they agreed with me. As members know, The Municipal Act does not specifically give the municipalities power to act in this area. Attack under the general sections of The Municipal Act, such as

section 242, was rejected for rather obvious reasons by the city council. I am certain -- I am absolutely certain -- that if this province took the initiative to make some very minor changes in The Municipal Act -- three or four words is all it would take -- that several cities, several municipalities in our province would move to put these operators under control. I wonder, are all the members of this government, are all the members of this cabinet so unwilling to protect the consumers as the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations is? Why hasn’t one of his colleagues moved to do something about it?

I’ve given this matter a great deal of thought and I’ve spent a fair amount of time on it, and I’ve come to the conclusion that it is clearly a question of consumer protection in Ontario for Ontario residents. The failure of this ministry to protect the consumers of our province, even though the need is totally documented and admitted by the minister -- and let me say there are several ways in which it could be done -- that unwillingness, that failure is totally unacceptable by any standard imaginable.

On April 4 in this House, the Leader of the Opposition remarked on this minister, and I think he expressed the real problem we’re faced with in a way that few members of this House could have expressed it. I would like to associate myself with the remarks he made at that time. I would remind the members of just two sentences in those remarks, and I quote the Leader of the Opposition: “If I may submit to you humbly, Mr. Speaker, he is the wrong minister for anything to do with consumer protection -- anything at all, whether it’s rents or whether it’s television repairs.

His refusal to consider a simple intrusion on the private marketplace to protect consumers from illegitimate private behaviour makes this often unworkable; and it leads to the minister’s own lovable eccentricities, which then govern, piously, the programmes we implement.”

But perhaps even better than the Leader of the Opposition, the problem of the current minister is best understood by the current minister. I have a copy of his testimony before a parliamentary committee in which the minister stated, regarding this very matter of consumer protection that I have raised: “Leave alone those activities in the market- place, which for the most part are self-regulatory. Again, we speak from the point of view of a philosophy. Our belief is that the less intrusion in this kind of thing, the better.” Oh, that’s a philosophy for you, boy.

In conclusion, I don’t mean to condemn the current Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I don’t mean to condemn him at all. I’m sure that he’s well qualified to sit as a minister of the Crown in this province. The problem is, he’s simply been given the wrong ministry. I am totally convinced, For example, that he would do a splendid job as the Minister without Portfolio.

I sincerely hope that this minister will step down from his position in the cabinet before April 30, so that something can be done about this problem and so something can be done about all the other problems faced in the field of consumer protection in this province.

[4:00]

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I want to discuss only one matter with you, sir, and the other members of the House who are gathered in such numbers this afternoon. It has to do with the government’s decision to exempt Ronto Development Company from the payment of land speculation tax. The reason I bring this to your attention, sir, is that you are no doubt aware that in Votes and Proceedings, paper No. 1, there is a resolution passed by the standing committee on public accounts calling on the government to establish a select committee to look into this matter.

I am afraid that it is not going to be raised by the government in any significant way, even though the instruction is there from the all-party committee, and is quite clear. I would hope, because of the information that has been put before the standing committee by the Provincial Auditor, that the government can be persuaded to take some positive action to remove the uncertainty, the lack of information and the cloud which lies over the judgement of the government in exempting Ronto Development from paying the land speculation tax.

I think you’re aware, Mr. Speaker, that the matter was referred by special resolution of the House to the standing committee which was also granted the rather special power to sit when the Legislature itself was not in session. At the meeting on February 3, 1977, the Auditor, who attends all of the public accounts meetings and is the main source of professional advice in this connection, was instructed to gather information and documents pertaining to the decision of the government to exempt Ronto Development Company from the payment of the land speculation tax.

The delay, until the Auditor brought the material before the committee on March 29, was caused by the fact that he had to undertake many visits to a number of offices to look over the extensive files in these offices of the papers and materials associated with the Ronto Development matter and then make judicious extraction from those documents; those which he felt would be of importance and significance to the standing committee on public accounts. So it wasn’t until March 29 that the Auditor put the materials before the members of the committee for our perusal.

We had an opportunity to look at these documents and they were voluminous indeed. They formed a stack about six inches high, although they were all carefully indexed and tabulated so that we could consider them more readily than would have otherwise been the case. We came to the conclusion as a committee because of the importance of the matter and for other reasons that I’ll bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, during the course of my remarks, that it was essential that this House move to establish a select committee so that a more careful investigation into this important matter could be undertaken.

I simply bring to your attention, sir, that the decision by order in council of the government meant that the Treasury of the province was by this decision in a position to forgo as much as $2 million in legitimate taxation. Basically, Route Investments purchased the property, which was in Brant county and is now by annexation in the city of Brantford, for just under $1.5 million. Less than two years later the property was sold for $12 million. It was not developed as required by The Land Speculation Tax Act for forgiveness of the tax or exemption. It was by order in council that Ronto was exempted.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, first something about the land in question. It is a well known farm in the area of Brant county. I suppose if you were to pick out the best fanning land in the whole of the county -- you would find that farm among the 10 most productive, most fertile farms. Because of its location right close to the city of Brantford and now within the city of Brantford, I suppose it was inevitable that it be developed under the present procedures for land-use planning.

I would think a decade from now it would be impossible, whatever government is in office in the province or in Canada, or whatever the thoughts of any local council, to put that land to ordinary development purposes.

I feel it is essential -- and I don’t want to get off the track of my remarks -- that this House takes action as soon as we possibly can to see that there is a procedure whereby such excellent land is not going to be developed in a way which means that forever it will be lost for the production of food material. I’ve heard so many members of this House talk about the need to protect class 1 land, but I wish that I could take the interested members to see that farm which is one of the best in the province.

A good friend of mine, James W. Pate, inherited it from his father. I can remember him being in high school when the sad news of Jim Pate’s father dying came to our attention. Jim, who was 18 or even younger at that time, left school to take up farming full time. He has made an excellent success of it with the help of his charming wife, and I believe four or five sons, all of them very able young men, well known in the community.

The fact that the farm was on the edge of the very rapid development coming out toward the northeast from Brantford meant that under our present laws and planning regulations it was inevitable that it would be developed and Mr. Pate, I think very wisely, decided to take some initiative in that connection, and I understand sought out the possibilities of making a sale, so that he could use the proceeds to relocate himself and his family so that they could continue farming with the skill that they have and enjoying the lifestyle which certainly is an enviable one.

I wanted just to indicate, however, sir, the materials that came before the standing committee which prompted us to consider and finally pass a resolution calling for the establishment of a select committee to look into this. Because the first instance that concerned us was that the government, in giving its indication of the reasons for the exemption from the land speculation tax, decided that the transfer of the land from Mr. Pate to Ronto took place on September 18, 1973.

Mr. Speaker, I apologize in advance for having to refer to some specific dates, but they are essential, because this Legislature in its wisdom passed the land speculation tax on April 9, 1974. As a matter of fact that is not the date it was passed, but it was introduced into the Legislature following the Treasurer’s budget of that time, and it was many weeks later before it became law. But one of the sections indicated that its application began April 9, 1974.

Now the document that the Auditor provided for us was referred to by the solicitor for Ronto when he appeared before our committee, Mr. E. A. Goodman. He indicated that the document itself was essentially the sale document. It was then possible for the officials in the Ministry of Revenue to establish the sale date at that time.

Upon examination of that document it became clear that it was very little more than an offer to purchase, very little more than an option -- a nine-month to a 12-month option -- giving Ronto the opportunity to buy the property if certain conditions were fulfilled. For a period of nine months Mr. Pate, the original owner, was not permitted to sell the property to anyone else. I suppose it was on that basis that the solicitor for Ronto wanted to have the earlier date established as the date of the sale of the land or the acquisition of the land.

Now in fact the deed was transferred much later than that. It was transferred on June 25, 1974. Since this was substantially after The Land Speculation Tax Act went into force, the timing of the sale for taxation purposes is of great importance indeed.

One of the first questions that was asked the Provincial Auditor was as to his opinion on the decision made by the Ministry of Revenue on whether or not the sale took place the previous fall, that is before the land speculation tax became law, or in fact after it. The Provincial Auditor said -- and I don’t blame him for this -- “I am not a lawyer, but in my opinion the sale took place after The Land Speculation Tax Act came into force.”

I will try to explain in a few moments how important this is. It has no bearing on any possible payment by Mr. Pate of this tax, because you can easily find that the transaction between Ronto and Mr. Pate was at a level where no land speculation tax would be paid, and of course Mr. Pate had been the owner and the bona fide farmer of the property for his whole lifetime, and his father and his grandfather before him. So we are not talking about that particular matter.

As a matter of fact, although it has no significance in this House, Mr. Pate will be subject to the federal tax, capital gains tax, because the valuation, of course, would have gone up from the evaluation day pertaining to the federal capital gains legislation. There is a strange anomaly in that case where the one government is attempting to set a value which would mean that the value of the Pate land to Mr. Pate had accrued to the largest amount so that he would be liable for the largest amount of capital gains tax,

whereas another government seems to be attempting to establish a value in a slightly different direction for special purposes of the land speculation tax computations.

But I wanted to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that the Auditor himself expressed an opinion to the committee that he felt for tax purposes the sale of the land should properly be construed as of June 25, 1974. There is no verbatim record of the statements made before the committee on public accounts and I trust that I am in no way misleading the House in putting to you, sir, in the words that I have used, what I consider to be the views expressed by the Auditor.

But I would also like to quote from one of the papers that the Auditor put before us. It is a letter signed by Mr. I. Stephenson, one of the directors of the Ministry of Revenue, and I quote from the fourth paragraph of his letter dated February 18, 1976. “On the basis of the information provided, it would appear that the designated lands were acquired by the transferor after April 9, 1974.”

So in the first instance when this matter was brought to the attention of the Ministry of Revenue it was clear to them that the transference date from Mr. Pate to Ronto was after the establishment of The Land Speculation Tax Act. The reason that this is important is that because of certain events which I don’t intend to be talking about here in any detail, Ronto felt that they did not want to carry on the development of the land themselves to the point where they were fully serviced and the lots ready for building. They entered almost immediately into negotiations with a company called George Wimpey Canada Limited for the sale of the whole tract of land, about 340 acres.

It is interesting to see the documents indicating that the exchanges of views between these two large development firms, and without going into any detail, it is clear that the transference was intended to be made, for example, without a real estate agent having been involved. It is interesting to note that the transference from Mr. Pate to Ronto Development makes no indication of any agent having been present or having been used in the transference or the sale of the property.

But when Ronto finally did decide that it was going to complete a sale to Wimpey, then the amount of $12 million, which was the purchase price, an extremely high price indeed, a very profitable price indeed, would give some real concern as to the payment of the land speculation tax.

Whereas the solicitor for Ronto, Mr. Goodman, had indicated in his letter to the Ministry of Revenue that a good deal of development had already taken place, still there is not a clear indication that the land was serviced to the extent, as Mr. Goodman said in his letter to the Ministry of Revenue, and I believe I can quote it: “The pipes are practically in the ground.” It was really far from that. And while this may have just been more or less a loose use of words, still there is no indication that the land itself was developed and was therefore under the provisions of The Land Speculation Tax Act that it could be exempted.

It was not developed. In fact, it was sold by Ronto to Wimpey and was developed after that sale took place; that is, the servicing was established well after that sale took place.

I can quote. Mr. Speaker, from a communication addressed to Mr. I. Stephenson, director, succession duty branch, Ministry of Revenue, from the solicitor for Ronto. The letter is dated February 13 and he says in the second page, the third paragraph: “You will notice that it is also a term of the condition that a subdivision agreement be assigned prior to the closing. In short, our client has done everything except put the pipes into the ground.”

[4:15]

Obviously the solicitor for Ronto had to sue all of his undoubted abilities to persuade the Ministry of Revenue that an exemption could be recommended to the government of Ontario on a bona fide basis. I’m not for a moment saying this letter is misleading, other than to say that there is no evidence that was put before the committee that the services were in. As a matter of fact, the member for Brantford (Mr.

Makarchuk), who at that particular time had just left his services as a councillor for the city of Brantford, was able to bring to us the dates for the calling of contracts for the servicing of this land and those dates were very much later than the dates of the matters that I am putting before you, Mr. Speaker, today.

I have also been considerably concerned as well that an evaluation of the property known now as Brantwood Estates -- it used to be the Brantwood Farm -- in our area, was carried out by a firm from Waterloo, W. H. Reimer. The evaluation was carried out on behalf of Ronto, who were very much concerned that the huge profit, if it were to be taxable based on the price they had given Mr. Pate, would have subjected them to a land speculation tax in excess of $2 million. So they hired Mr. Reimer to make an evaluation of the property at valuation day for land speculation tax which was April 9.

By coincidence, the some firm, W. H. Reimer, had been inserted into the Pate-Ronto deal as an agent and had been paid $36,250 on June 4, 1974, in its capacity as an agent. The same firm, according to the material given to us by the Auditor, was used to evaluate the same property for the purposes of the sale by Ronto to George Wimpey Canada Limited, and in order to establish a value for the land. Mr.

Reimer, as certainly was appropriate, examined the sales of a number of properties in the area at about that time, and in this connection there is a further communication from the solicitor for Ronto indicating as follows -- this is a letter from the solicitor for Ronto, once again to Mr. I. Stephenson of the Ministry of Revenue, dated March 10, 1976. Now I quote from the main paragraph of the letter:

“The designated lands were purchased under an agreement of purchase end sale dated September 18, 1973.” In parenthesis, I simply bring to the attention of the House that this follows the one from Mr. Stephenson indicating that the sale was after April 7, 1974. So they’re trying to establish this date for evaluation purposes. “The transaction was closed on June 26, 1974. The valuation we have used as of April 9, 1974, can be substantiated by sales of adjacent properties owned by one Webster which sold at a price of $20,000 an acre. Prior to April 9, 1974, our client’s lands were annexed to the city of Brantford which substantially increased its value.”

Now written in the margin of the letter that is provided to us by the Provincial Auditor is a notation, “October 1, 1974.” In other words, in spite of the letter signed by the solicitor for Ronto, Mr. E. A. Goodman. the annexation did not take place prior to April 9, but in fact took place some months later, October 1, 1974. The letter also refers to the fact that the property owned by one Webster was used as the basis for evaluation. Now one Webster happens to be Max Webster, who is a well-known entrepreneur, a farmer --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Will the hon. member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Drea) keep his voice down? I understand he’s the next speaker on my list. The hon. member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk has the floor.

Mr. Nixon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Breaugh: He’s warming up.

Mr. Nixon: The gentleman who is referred to in Mr. Goodman’s letter is the vice-chairman of the Ontario Racing Commission, obviously a good friend of Mr. Ron Todgham, now deceased. The valuation of the Ronto land -- president, Mr. Todgham -- has been established basically by comparing it with the value of the lands owned by Mr. Max Webster in a nearby and adjoining area. Upon reading, as carefully as we can, the documents that the Auditor has provided for us, it’s cle